2,222 karma · joined June 8, 2022
100% this. Unions help employees to negotiate better even in a layoff situation.
Engineers and other software related jobs, are just that jobs. Unions are specially designed to help employees better deals whatever the industry.
I am always surprised when I see links that look like "sfvhedw-news.zoo" or "newyork-thetimes-news.jobs" to news in social media. No reputation, nor good nor bad, no known ownership, but quite extreme views in selected articles in a sea of copy/paste news from news agencies to give the impression that they are "real".
I liked blogs because it was clear that was some random person opinion, and you should take it like that. All I see now are the "fake newspapers" that look like any newspaper but are really run by two people that own another hundred sites like that one.
And this is how a circle jerk works.
Only if you are a child. One thing is that Microsoft leadership does not like the situation the other one is to insult the UK and lash out. That is a sign of entitlement and a very destructive way of looking at the rule of law.
Microsoft is showing its most unprofessional and belligerent face going back to the worst times of the company. Remember the FUDs about Linux, the lies about DR-DOS, ... Microsoft is back and needs to be corrected.
It is even worse in the age of Digital Rights Management were you buy something and do not own it. A fake detour in a map with hundreds of thousands seems mild in comparison.
But why? Why copyright and other licenses and rights do not apply?
Most "troublemakers", as you call them, that I have known are people deeply moral and worried about their peers and society. I have seen two types, thou. Some have such a strong moral compass that will fight for what is right even knowing that it will have consequences. And the naive ones that think that, as they are morally right, the structures of power will recognize their sins and correct the situation. None of them were anti-social.
But that is just my personal experience.
1. You get better prepared people. Any society based on nepotism is doomed to fail.
2. You get different views on how to solve problems. People with different background have different experiences that give a wider view of the world.
3. It is fair. Injustice is a bad way of running a society.
> At least the well-off folks won't have their lives ruined if they fail to get tenure.
Everybody in a society has a right to a good life. That someone does not get a tenure does not mean that their life has ended, there are many possibilities in life and governments have to provide safety nets to help people to get back on their feet.
All art is a form of personal expression and it is full of new views and political change. I think that the difference is that in the West reactionary criticism permeates all social media.
If a Japanese show tells the story of a set of characters fighting the global goverment injustices its viewers enjoy the show. If an American show tries to do the same a very small part of the population but very noisy will criticize it as "communist" and "politicized" instead of enjoying the real feelings of love and justice that humans enjoy in their stories.
It worked. Nowadays it is not easy to see this kind of ads anymore.
There is a big incentive for this future as it will be the high point of advertisement. Every AI search, every AI written book, every AI produced TV show will have the incentive to sell you something. Without other sources of information people critical thinking will be impossible, anything that the AI generated content says is true. We can avoid this future, but I do not see any of the big companies caring about it, if anything they are salivating on future profits.
Your brain will not be empty but full of whatever the highest bidder wants you to believe.
This is an openly illegal practice that is only possible by the collusion of judges. If judges accepted the totally fabricated reasons that companies provide for their behavior in murder cases, criminals could get out of prison by just arguing that "the victim shot himself from 10 meters away". You know that it is impossible, the judge knows that it is impossible, but as far as the judicial system accepts it then keeps you out of prison. That "sales" are all assigned to a very convenient city is the same case, an obvious lie that will not pass any accounting good practice but that tribunals accept to favor big corporations, usually for kickbacks.
Automated human classification without recourse nor transparency is what the EU is against. "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable.
> Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI?
Yes. As a judge can check what information was used and what algorithm applied to get to a conclusion. And it may declare that use of data or algorithm illegal.
> They fear the amplification factor of such tech, but the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad
Maybe just go slower. Something like an Hippocratic oath can be a good principle to follow for high impact technologies. To do some good may not justify the harm.
This does not mean that the regulation is broken but that it should have come even sooner. As Uber found out, to run faster than regulations just works for so much time.
> In February the lead lawmakers on the AI Act, Benifei and Tudorache, proposed that AI systems generating complex texts without human oversight should be part of the “high-risk” list — an effort to stop ChatGPT from churning out disinformation at scale.
This seems an actual good goal. Move fast and break things is not a good approach when what you are breaking is the whole society.
> The EU's AI Act should “maintain its focus on high-risk use cases,” said Microsoft’s Chief Responsible AI Officer Natasha Crampton
> A recent investigation by transparency activist group Corporate Europe Observatory also said industry actors, including Microsoft and Google, had doggedly lobbied EU policymakers to exclude general-purpose AI like ChatGPT from the obligations imposed on high-risk AI systems.
Of course Microsoft wants to sell a product even if they do not know the impact that it will have onto the population. EU should balance that desire of profit taking into account the need of its citizens.
> ChatGPT told POLITICO it thinks it might need regulating: “The EU should consider designating generative AI and large language models as ‘high risk’ technologies, given their potential to create harmful and misleading content,” the chatbot responded when questioned on whether it should fall under the AI Act’s scope.
Funny one.
If I buy all the lithium supply in the world and sell it back, what price do you think that I will charge?
Monopolies and cartels make prices go up.
The so called "free speech absolutists" that are just a facade for far-right activists looking to evade responsibilities for their xenophobic and usually violent remarks have created a hostile on-line community.
Any community that lets people spread lies, and hate without consequences is doomed to suffer from anxiety and lose trust in humanity. Teenagers are just the worst affected by this as they are still developing their personalities.
> Another adaptation is probably to take social media less seriously. Twitter isn’t a field of combat where heroes decide the fates of nations — it’s just a silly room where people scream at each other and tell a bunch of lies.
Accepting defeat is not the way. I do not want to live in a society where lies are normalized and citizens are asked to just deal with it. Fix social media or close it. To ask millions of citizens to just accept the most cynical view of the world without being affected is neither realistic nor moral.
Accessibility needs to be regulated. In UK accessibility is well regulated for public websites: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-p...
If we do not do the same for all websites then people with disabilities will be kicked out of a normal live.
> But how effective can this be?
As you point out it will not stop pirates.My guess is that they implement the feature, piracy goes down the week it is released, and everybody gets a bonus. In less than a month piracy is up again as they develop new tools, and people with disabilities lost access to it. But it is too late.
Accessibility in websites need some kind of evolutionary pressure to exists. Otherwise change after change it disappears. And the population that needs this features to have normal lives is not large enough to create an economic incentive.
What nonsense. The writer assumes that the final goal of the goverment is to increase revenue. That is how corporations work, not governments. The goal of government is to represent its citizens to try to achieve the society that citizens want. The goal is to maximize well-being (whatever is each person definition), not cash.
From there on, everything falls into this kind of missing the point arguments.
This is one of the reasons that capital profits should be taxes way higher. Letting one company accumulate such power in such a short period of time makes society unstable.
I hope the best to the American citizens that will suffer thru this situation.
TikTok will push ads that grab people attention. That will cause ads to become more extreme, what will create a race to the bottom on grab attention ads.
If you though that ads have gotten more obnoxious during the years wait until they are hyper-optimized by the second.
That is why Bing is the wrong product to integrate it with. Most Google users will not look after the first 10 results because reading so much gets tiresome. They are never going to write 2000 words to try to get the information that they want when they are not willing to read 100 words.
> I disagreed with its results and what it could do better.
That is the problem. You know the answer and are looking for a question to get it. That is the opposite of what a search engine is. It can be a great tech for makes no sense as a search engine.
It is not a hidden fact that CEOs wants to hype companies to increase share value. That is the basics of 2023 economy, hype over results.
I think that it comes from having high expectations. It took me four or five questions until Open AI chat started to write lies, and half trues. When talking with it I feel like a teacher trying to get the correct answer from a student that does not get it. I give it cues, tips, bound the answer and yet it manages to get things wrong.
So, the worst part of Open AI chat is that it gets very boring to work with after the first awe.
It is a great piece of technology, it is impressive. But as a product it is dull. And I need to double check its answer with Google each time, so why bother?
Using Chat AI for Bing is like using blockchain for cryptocurrencies. It is a solution looking for a problem. Bing is the wrong answer, people should accept that and look for better uses for it. They are out there for sure.
That may be the reason. To create an article that looks like professional best practices but it is just an advertisement. Microsoft used to do a lot of that in its war against Open Source back in the day.
But I agree that any tool used wrongly can be replaced by something simpler that cuts to the chase and delivers on what management is really interested in. And in this case has nothing to do with improving employees performance.
Everybody though that Google was behind and failing when their problem was to understand how far of being a production product this kind of chats are.