nick486

questioning someone's moral authority isnt equivalent to supporting his opponent.

when evil dies, the need to pretend to be good in the face of it, dies as well.

Its always been foggy. Even without AI, you were always at risk of having your field disrupted by some tech you didn't see coming.

AI will probably replace the bottom ~30-70%(depends who you ask) of dev jobs. Dont get caught in the dead zone when the bottom falls out.

Exactly how we'll train good devs in the future, if we don't give them a financially stable environment environment to learn in while they're bad, is an open question.

> "it's not X (emdash) it's Y" pestilence.

I wonder for how long this will keep working. Can't be too hard to prompt an AI to avoid "tells" like this one...

>Update and Shutdown

and if you pick that, there's a high chance that it will reboot and leave your pc running anyway.

"sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity."

Last time i had to get a visa through these kind of channels, it looked almost deliberate. Outright bribing is now frowned upon, so they make the visa process as frustrating and opaque as possible. So that people have to either waste several days at the embassy, or go through one of those visa agencies instead. You pay for a totally legit above-the-table service, but it is effectively a "socially accepted bribe". And the administrative problem magically disappears.

>Taking a zoom call in a car sucks. Taking one in a train with face to face seating, wifi, Power plus and a table between you is a much better experience.

Not for all the other people around you, no.

its how most home networks already work, when you think of it. you have a small locked down isp-provided technically-a-computer, that manages your connection, and behind that, you have all your own stuff on your home network.

if anything, it would be mobile computing "pulling the modem out of the computer", like home desktops did in the 90s. I probably still have that 14.4k pcmcia modem card laying around somewhere...

realistically, the end point for moderately tech savvy folks is going to a be two-device setup. one cheap phone for basic communication , all the corpo stuff like banking and shirt-and-tie social media + a wifi hotspot. then a second "practical use" device that uses the hotspot, that you fully control and do your tinkering with.

edit: coming to think of it, teaching people to have a device for the "clean stuff" and separate one for the "stupid stuff" could even turn out to be a benefit.

I'm open to the idea that i somehow caught an outlier. then again, its a lab integrated to the general eu funding schemes, so it can't be that much of an outlier.

your summary of a grant request doesn't really sound all that different from mine tbh, just more charitable. Its just that i naively came in with the expectation that it would be something like "we need X$ to explore domain $Y" "sure. here you go", then 2 years later "we found x y and z, see $papers, now we'd like $x2 to explore $y2". and back to square 1/2.

a full broadcast over all available and unavailable channels of "please, master grant officer, just a few coins to explore $X a bit further, we'll very certainly find $Y", i was not ready for.

Im overdoing the tone a bit to highlight that it had to be tuned to the grant officer, way more than it had to be tuned to reality. to promise to find whatever was popular in the field at the time. regardless of the practical facts of the field. because the people evaluating the proposal didnt know shit about the field.

so when you were in the trench every day, it just sounded like absolute parody of what we were actually doing, explained to a kindergartener.

i realize this comes off as a knock on my boss way more than I'd like. i absolutely don't mean to. he did what had to be done, so that his team can keep working, within the system he had to work with to move our field forward. and the money we got was well spent, no doubt here.

but my view was : if I work my ass off for 10 years, I can be this guy. Do I want this? and the answer was a resounding, definitive "hell no".

all the paper publishing shenanigans were just extra irritants that sealed my decision.

I had the same view until I went to do a small internship in a research lab. There, I realized that my research group's boss was spending most of his time submitting grant requests, that in my view distilled to 'Give use money and we will find X'. Which was absolutely antithetical to what I thought research was like(wait, aren't we supposed to not know what we will find ?). Then came the publishing part where you get reviews saying your paper isn't good enough because it didn't cite ${completely not relevant to the topic} paper (which sort of narrows down who the "anonymous reviewer" was). Then there's the quasi-feudal approach of putting the lab head in the authors. I mean, come on, I'm not sure the guy even knows the paper exists...

It just wasn't my thing.

I mean, to be a bit of a devil's advocate, its not impossible. Bitcoin sort of has the reputation of being used to buy "shady stuff". Its not unreasonable for MasterCard to not want to be "That card company people buy edgy porn with".

Which is why we need them to be legally required to process all lawful transactions, so that they cannot be singled out for it.

the wiring harness required would be a bit uncomfortable.

find an old one, connect the odometer to count the distance flown in addition to the x00k miles it already has, stream the video as it flies around the moon and back.

would be a fun publicity stunt.

> By asking ChatGPT about "Russian narratives."

This is so stupid. ChatGPT is inferring the expected response tone from your question. Which means you could get it to argue pretty much anything with guided questions. I got it to admit its going to destroy humanity. Or that there is a likely a covert alien invasion in progress. All that with none of those "pretend you're X" prompts, just back-and-forth banter.

Journalists should really have a mandatory course on what an llm is before being allowed to publish this kind of clickbait.

with enough energy(like starship would have), i suppose you could get out of an irrecoverable tipping over motion by just lighting the engines and trying again. Before you fall, obviously. "works in KSP"^TM

Yes. There was just recently a post about a person who got his life saved by chatGPT reading his blood results and saying "ER. NOW." Would that Medical result PDF be anonymized here? Stripping PI from random pdfs, sounds like a very nontrivial problem.

What if, instead of random internet person, some celebrity asks Chatgpt about some spicy Medical results? Would the journalist reviewing the logs resist the temptation of "accidentally finding the test results in a garbage bin"?

What I read here, is "don't discuss with chatgpt anything you wouldn't be comfortable becoming public knowledge.".

>> Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

I love this line. Its like a riff on the old radio Yerevan joke.

> Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech.

> A: Yes, and the US Constitution also guarantees freedom after speech.

Why ? The discussion is about fixing brand reputation, and he quotes probably one of the most disgustingly successful rebrands in history. If even IG Farben managed to successfully rebrand, surely a company that just went "a little too far" with private data, can too. Looks quite on topic to me.

they will probably be discouraged in the workplace too. no one wants to be dealing with a sexual harassment case, just because someone didnt pay attention to the direction his head was pointing in, while reading some random article on his glasses' internal screen.

I don't think its comparable. phone cameras are assumed to be off, its pretty obvious when someone is recording a video, because he has to hold the phone in a very uncomfortable position.

Unless someone is actively pointing their phone at you, you can reasonably assume you're not being filmed.

this thing, on the other hand, is supposed to be on all the time. So having your head pointed in someone's general direction is going to be interpreted as "actively filming that person".

This could easily lead to getting punched in the face.

>What happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Nothing. It still is the same fake Voltaire quote used to con overly idealistic adversaires into giving you some situational supprt against their better interest. No institutional actor ever followed it.

the equivalent here would be a child learning from a textbook he has written himself.

not sure how effective that would be, if it was his only source of learning.