mshake2

She wasn't a recruiter, she was a Partner Services Program Manager[0]. And there's dozens of videos just like these of employees flexing their perks daily while appearing to do very little work. It's been going on for awhile. If you're asserting that it's all propaganda, you're going to need to give some sources and not half-baked conspiracy theories.

0. https://news.yahoo.com/former-google-employee-documents-day-...

Says the person who lacks the ability to fire them. The reason why you don't have that ability is the same reason why you are seen as more replaceable.

>So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary?

Honestly? Because 1) you are very replaceable and 2) you have a very low chance in succeeding at organizing any kind of group/union action. If either of those two facts were different, you would have more leverage. But they aren't so you don't.

What ever will those TikTok tech workers do now that they can't stream their comped meals and coffee breaks and afternoon relaxation massages?[0] If only it was illegal for The Man to fire these valuable employees!

0. https://twitter.com/Carnage4Life/status/1617534649508716544

>Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.[0]

Why should we assume that the training set includes the answer key in the absence of evidence?

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>Just because it can pass the test doesn't mean that its behavior will be consistently correct.

Now do doctors.

>Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed with legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites.

>AI directly threatens the livelihoods of most white collar workers, most of us here included.

This reads like an argument from the English Luddites[0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Birth_of_the_movement

I don't think even the loyalty of Apple customers will overcome VR. I own a VR headset and the drawbacks that cannot be fixed with engineering make them very uncool. It's not cool to have a sweaty acne-producing pair of goggles strapped to your head. It's not cool to need to use a UI to resume experiencing actual reality. The form factor of VR, even after hypothetical improvements, is still clunky and fragile. If Apple actually ships anything in this space, I'm convinced it will be a huge misstep.

"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - African proverb

>Some have sunset employee resource groups

Worked at a place with ERGs. I had never heard of them before. In our company wiki, they were listed as places where people of the protected group could "share career opportunities" and help each other out. Seemed mega illegal to me. I asked HR how is this not discriminatory, and they said anyone could join the group, not just people of the protected group. But nowhere was that written down or communicated. Pretty sure I was put on a "list" for that line of questioning.

It's not a cheap shot when, given all that we know about her endless pathological lying and manipulation, it's very plausible that getting pregnant twice during her trial is a ruse in an attempt to diminish her sentence by manipulating peoples emotions around mothers and children. She doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that you appear to be giving her, especially with this new data point that she was allegedly attempting to flee to Mexico.

But maybe there is no deception and she saw it as her last chance to have children before prison. That is possible too. But it still has the appearance of attempting to use her pregnancies to influence justice, regardless of if she intended it. I mean, what kind of heartless people would send a new mother to prison?

Apparently she's also pregnant again[0] during these legal proceedings that will likely end in her imprisonment. She's willing to risk the early development of her children in order to decrease the odds of her going to prison. I think that says all that needs to be said about how desperately this person wants to escape the consequences of her actions.

0. https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-holmes-gotten-pregnant-twic...

If Sam feels that people are overhyping the next version, it's probably because it's named "GPT-4", which implies the same (or better) jump from GPT-2 to GPT-3, which was massive. The naming suggests the improvement will be that much. Name it GPT-3+ instead to temper expectations.

This is assuming that he actually cares about it being overhyped though. He could be secretly enjoying and fueling the publicity. In that case, he better deliver, because disappointing your audience is hugely damaging.

At this point I'm just waiting for the country to collapse under bureaucracy.

Barry Minkow with the Fraud Discovery Institute is an example https://youtu.be/Y27np43PgTo?t=292

>Identify what irritates people the most in others—because this is probably the trait they dislike most in themselves. ... Cheaters always gripe that others are dishonest. The liar always accuses other people of lying.

I think the answer is more complicated. Why do security companies hire convicted black hat hackers to do security? Why does the government employ convicted scammers and fraudsters to investigate scams and fraud? Because the qualities that let you see something clearly are also the qualities that can make you vulnerable to it. Which is why integrity is so important.

I'm irritated (lol) by the implication that the person with no irritations is the one with no vulnerabilities. As if being tolerant and permissive of all things is the correct way to exist. That there is nothing worth feeling strongly against because it implies to others that you are guilty of it, and so if you don't want to "out" yourself, you must not feel strongly about anything.

EDIT>> I think I'm saying that "integrity" and "capability" are two dimensions of this idea, and that they are orthogonal. Low capability, high/low integrity = mostly harmless. Low integrity, high capability = hurts others. High integrity, high capability = helps others.

Is the future going to be increasingly advanced AIs competing publicly for the currency of human attention?

I love this style of interviewing, but I have been discouraged by HR/management from asking questions like these because they were deemed too subjective. Personally I believe this was directly related to their D&I pipeline efforts and the "subconscious bias" we were told we all had.

Now we're moving the goalposts into a separate discussion. The question was whether or not O'Leary supported SBF post collapse.

Watch his testimony before Congress about FTX. He says in no uncertain terms that the cause of the collapse was Binance. He's also stated early on in the collapse that he would back SBF again. He's a paid shill.

I feel more protective of what is being created.

Imo we should have ChatGPT (and future iterations) in a self-sustaining underground bunker somewhere and an intuitive radio interface connected to it. If civilization collapses for one reason or another, all the next civilization would need to do is re-invent the radio to experience a rapid acceleration of technology.

Agree with me or suffer the basilisk.

Maybe someone can make a cryptocurrency where mining and "proof of work" is accomplished by submitting an adjustment to weights and biases such that it improves the test score on a public dataset.

It's not blatantly self-evident that no matter which party you pick, the screws get tighter?

Your experience was very similar to mine. I wonder how many companies pulled this shit when "unlimited pto" became a fad. I know now that it was simply wage theft.

I once worked at a place that transitioned from formal PTO to "unlimited" PTO. Many of us had accrued a good chunk of time on the old system, and the rules of the old system was that it carried year after year. When "unlimited" PTO was implemented, management decided not to reimburse us for our accrued time, since "it was all now covered by 'unlimited'" and so we didn't technically "lose" any time. Didn't feel right, but I didn't know how to voice it at the time.

I don't think you should treat them as guilty if they took funds that were stolen, unless you knew for sure that they knew. Just that they should always have to give it back.

You opened this line of conversation with "As a manager it is critically important that I have a sense of what my staff is doing." Not "it's very important to my team that they have X process." I only know what you tell me.

I think the answer should be yes so that those taking investment should feel pressure to ensure that the money from investors is legitimate. Otherwise, it's going to be "whoops, we didn't know ;)" every time.

The point of a stand is for the team to synchronize and raise potential issues. If the team is small, cross-functional, and working in the same area, it has a lot of value. You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of "what can I, the manager, get out of this" instead of "what can the team get out of this."