The other issue I have is that this is an example of a recurring issue in which the tech obsessed ultra wealthy declare their plan to solve a problem for which a very straightforward policy solution already exists.
We don’t need tech to extend lives or feed the hungry. We just need to remove the paywalls to existing resources.
This is what I was going to say.
Also, long form narrative. Right now LLMs seem to work best for short conversations, but get increasingly unhinged over very long conversations. And if they generate a novel, it’s not consistent or structured, from what I understand.
What show is this?
My son went as Wario.
I went as Waluigi, similar stuff and costs.
There’s one more key consideration I haven’t heard people mention: you can choose to make your costume out of stuff you can wear outside of Halloween!
My son can wear purple overalls any day of the year. Our hats aren’t cheap costume hats, they’re baseball caps, which are useful accessories you can wear any time.
If you’re looking to get started making a Halloween costume, try going to a thrift store or an online reseller like Mercari and recognize that Halloween is an opportunity to buy stuff you kinda want to wear but feel self conscious about buying. Buy yourself a used leather biker jacket. It’s just a costume! But also… Now you happen to have a dope jacket in your closet. Maybe wear it the week after Halloween and see if it feels right…
That’s one of the best parts of putting together Halloween costumes, imo.
It’s good enough to keep me interested.
It’s not good enough to replace Reddit yet, in the sense that I’m still active on Reddit. But there is enough worthwhile content here that I can check in each day and find some stuff that I enjoy. And that’s enough to give me a reason to keep coming back.
The question “are we in a recession??” always makes me think of the SNL at-home headache test commercial:
Deal removes constraint on OpenAI’s ability to raise capital
I think they mean “raze”…
Agreed. His comments are so bizarrely stupid on so many levels.
They’re not just “wrong”: they’re half-right-half-wrong. And the half that is wrong is idiotic in the extreme, while the half that is right casually acknowledges a civilizational crisis like someone watching their neighbors screaming in a house fire while sipping a cup of coffee.
Like this farmer analogy: the farmers were right! Their way of life and all that mattered to them was largely exterminated by these changes, and we’re living in their worst nightmare! And he even goes so far as acknowledging this, and acknowledging that we’ll likely experience the same thing. We’re all basically cart horses at the dawn of the automobile, and we might actually hate where this is going. But… It’ll probably be great.
He just has a hunch that even though all evidence suggests that this will lead to the opposite of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for some reason his brain can’t shake the sense that it’s going to be good anyway. I mean, it has to be, otherwise that would make him a monster! And that simply can’t be the case. So there you have it.
It’ll be terrible great.
100%.
Peter Frase deconstructed this in an article a decade ago (and subsequent book) “Four Futures”.
It’s really not complicated. Saying 'the rich want to make us all obsolete and then kill us off ’ sounds paranoid and reactionary, but if you actually study these dynamics critically that’s a pretty good distillation of what they’d like to do, and they’re not really concealing it.
I’m glad to see cross platform releasing. Eventually, I’d like consoles to all just be open platforms.
I think it’s remarkable that you and several other folks actually give notice. Now-a-days, I think that’s somewhat unusual.
A lot of people just bounce. Sometimes they don’t even bother telling anyone, they just don’t show up and stop picking up the phone. I hear about this happening regularly at my husband’s workplace (which to be fair is retail).
I told my last boss when I began reaching final round interviews so that he could plan accordingly. A lot of people thought that was risky and that I should’ve just quietly lined up my next job and told him I was leaving once I’d accepted, but I liked him and liked the work (it was lab research. I wasn’t a big-time scientist, but I’d been managing the lab for a while and actually gave a shit about what we did).
Regarding your situation, I think you did what you could and showed a lot more integrity than is common. Could you have stayed until your boss was back from vacation and then given a proper notice? If so, well… then maybe you should’ve. If not… then it’s unfortunate, but there wasn’t much I think you could’ve done.
I appreciate this answer, because it at least tries to reason from first principles. You can’t, imo, have this conversation without actually defining what we consider to be the problem.
I think the key concern is that age – particularly during teenage years – typically correlates with a power imbalance. And the concern is that the younger person could be exploited and/or suffer harm. However we need to remember:
So the questions I have are: how correlated is a specific age gap with severe harm? And what would we advise in this situation?
I think that a 16 year-old probably has around a 50% of getting badly hurt in a relationship with another 16 year-old, and probably a ~65% chance with a 19 year-old. Because a 19 year-old can probably manipulate a 16 year-old better than their peer, but they’re also presumably a bit more experienced and mature, which can be a good thing.
I’m making these predictions presuming that they’re sexually active, btw. Which I think is probable. But if they’re not, I think that the risks go down to around 10% chance in both cases. This is just my gut impression. So I’d just advise any 16 year-old in a relationship with a 19 year-old to move VERY slowly physically, and talk frequently to an older friend or sibling. And if your partner wants to do anything you’re uncomfortable talking about with your older friend or sibling, that’s a sign you shouldn’t do it.
If you follow that rule, I think 16 and 19 is no big deal. Because I really want to emphasize: a lot of the risk already exists when a 16 year-old dates someone their own age.
I love buses too, but a van pool is materially different. Buses travel fixed routes. A van pool can act as a shared taxi that shuttles people directly between points of immediate departure, transit stations, and final destinations.
This article is a little light on thesis, but legit.
Personally, I’d like to tie a vision of autonomous vehicles to a broad rethinking of transit and public ownership. What if training data was shared, so instead of allowing Google to create another monopoly we deliberately cultivated a diverse market? What if we designed roads to accommodate autonomous van pools and also bikes and more light vehicles?
We can dream better than this.
It depends on your goals. But I think $15k is a lot of money, and I would invest it.
How old are you and how much do you make a year?
(My socialist ass:)
The same thing we do every day, Pinko: Try to take over the world!
100%.
I try to remind myself, though, that it would be a waste of time trying to yell at this tidal wave of rage that’s bearing down on us just as it would to yell at an actual tidal wave. I think we need to be grabbing sand bags and securing our food supplies and looking to get to the other side of this period of history. I think it could easily last a generation. And if we’re really, really effective (and lucky) it could be as short as another decade. But there’s no use rubbernecking or bellyaching. We just need to focus on fixing this broken-ass world.
I think you’re right not to spend any energy on this, and I agree that it would be performative to pretend to be sad that he left the world. In some ways, our society is better for normalizing honest reactions to things.
However: I want to encourage you to think about what it means to define him as vermin. Within the meaning of this word is the belief that he is low enough on a hierarchy of worth that he no longer falls under the protections and values we afford to “human”. And furthermore, he is of a group that can only be effectively dealt with through extermination.
Personally, I don’t think this is a useful philosophical concept. It’s very central to the philosophies that Charlie Kirk sought to popularize: the idea that some people, through their worldview and lifestyle have forfeited any minimum universal protections we afford to humans, and instead should be eradicated. Obviously, his criteria of human worth was more or less an inverse of yours, but personally I’d reject his overall framework.
I’m really sure whether I truly disagree with it. But I definitely believe that the framework itself inherently benefits the fascist project far, far more than it could benefit a socialist project.
I definitely don’t encourage you to mourn him. But I would encourage you to ask whether you really think there’s utility in agreeing with him at all on the principle that humans can be vermin.
I think this is the main story. I don’t think it’s new info, but it confirms the issue persists: this LLM is so heavily trained to fawn over Musk that it doesn’t exercise any application of context or attempt to find truth.
Which is sad.