Do not disassemble.
if we don’t adopt UBI, universal healthcare, and some amount of subsidized housing
This has been my stance for years. Automation is coming for all of us. The only reason LLMs are so controversial is that everyone in power assumed automation was coming for the blue collar jobs first, and now that it looks like white collar and creative jobs are on the chopping block, suddenly it’s important to protect people’s jobs from automation, put in safety nets, etc, etc.
Forgive my cynicism. haha
This feels like wishful thinking. Any automated system (cars, LLMs, etc) only need to be better than a human doing that job. Your example, for, um, example, ignores that self-driving trucks don’t need to take sleep breaks, or bathroom breaks, or spend time with their families, etc.
Using the assumption that this is the bottom of the curve for this LLM technology and that we still have a lot of expansion in the tech coming in a relatively short amount of time, then I would guess that any job that makes art that is “work for hire” will cease to exist, and I imagine programming is going to take a pretty big hit in available jobs. I don’t think you’ll be able to get rid of human programmers altogether, but you’ll need way fewer of them.
You shouldn’t trust ChatGPT for that, but your company could definitely spin up their own LLM and then we’re back at the problem.
I don’t buy this. I am a cis, white, middle-class male. Should I vote only for my best interests, or should I take a wider view, and vote even if it will personally disadvantage me?
Voting against one’s own best interests is not brainwashing, necessarily.
And this is still within my first point. They are definitely voting against their best interests, but it could just be that they find this an acceptable trade off to getting something else they want-- like more codified religion in the law, or bringing back the good ol’ days (/s) of overt racism.
The point is that “they’re brainwashed” is a cop out. And, not for nothing, a corollary to them being brainwashed is that they are not responsible for their actions, isn’t it?
While I understand the urge to come to this conclusion, it’s a simpler hypothesis that they just like the policies these people have pushed for, so much so that they disregard all the negatives that seem to be connected to Republican control (lower life expectancy, ineffective government programs[^1], lower standard of living, etc. You might call it “brainwashing” but that term in this context is too vague; they could claim we are also brainwashed with the same amount of accuracy.
Also, while it isn’t your point, this would be a reason they keep getting voted in-- not a reason they run unopposed.
[1] This may be seen as a good thing, for some of them.
Because people keep voting for them, or they simply run unopposed.
It’s to be expected for Christians (et al); a vast majority have been taught at a young age that the perfect society is one where a benevolent god makes all the decisions and you just shut up and do as you’re told. It was never The People’s Republic of Heaven; it’s the Kingdom of Heaven.
You wouldn’t happen to be a white, cis, male, would you? I ask because you seem to have a somewhat abstract concept of what politics is.
My point is that you shouldn’t have made that comment at all. What purpose did it serve? You are aware that many people do take collective responsibility for their country, right? You would agree that if one is to take pride in the good, they should also shoulder responsibility for the bad, right? You are aware that when someone uses the collective “we”, especially in the context of criticizing a country, that they may not (and are probably not) including their own personal stance in that comment, right?
You were trolling. The new question is: why? Are you so emotionally attached to the Marshall Plan being seen as an overall good thing that you needed to lash out? I don’t get it. In fact, the only non-troll reason I see is that you do take credit for the good but refuse to take responsibility for the bad.
And since we’re obviously belaboring this point: If not the individual citizen’s responsibility, whose is it? Do you believe “every vote matters”, or not? Do you believe in “of the people, by the people, for the people”? You may not feel comfortable taking pride in any national accomplishments, and that’s fine-- I’m not sure there are even many in which to take pride-- but we all have a say in how society conducts itself and when it conducts itself badly, that is a failing for all of us. And if I’m being blunt, it has the same general feeling of some white man first learning about white male privilege and saying “You must be talking about yourself; I wasn’t privileged!”
Well, first off, you should have never made the dig about “speaking for yourself”. Unless, of course, you just didn’t know what I meant or what we were talking about, which clearly you did. You may disagree with whether it’s correct to have national pride, but in a comment where I was replying to someone who did suggest they had national pride, your remark is borderline trolling, and it is what caused by misunderstanding at your actual point.
I see from the link you provided that you’re a mod of this community. Behave better, lest we end up right back where we were with Reddit.
Your entire discussion seems milquetoast at this point. You didn’t mean this, you didn’t say that. Even here you send mixed messages-- is “lacking harm” something to be proud of? You say: “honestly, yeah”.
I think you’re just wasting my time at this point.
I did?
I assumed you didn’t read it because the criticism is also that it didn’t actually help. That is to say, countries that got the money didn’t recover faster than those that didn’t. So what would you call something that benefits just yourself?
I was arguing that compared to other powers of the era(and now) the Marshall plan was lacking harm.
Is “lacking harm” something to be proud of?
If you say “we did x” you are taking responsibility for x- but I didn’t do x and I will not take responsibility for it.
I try not to take an aggressive stance, but this is 100% Grade-A bullshit. Where is this stance of yours when it comes to the Marshall Plan? The entire topic is about taking pride in the collective actions of the country. If “we” did things to be proud of, then “we” did things you should be ashamed of. You have to pick one mode of thought-- you can’t claim pride in just the good things while refusing responsibility for the bad.
One, it doesn’t seem like they’re comparable products for most uses.
ChatGPT, the user-facing website, is not comparable to google, but the technology itself is directly comparable. I am using Google’s own brand of chatbot-in-search (not bard, but probably is bard in the background) and it really does a good job taking the information from the top couple search results and compiling it together in one place for me to get the answer to my question. It seems (seems) less likely to hallucinate since it seems to be pulling information specifically from the search results; I obviously don’t accept what it outputs without clicking through to the source websites, but I could see that becoming unnecessary in the future, since so far I haven’t seen anything misrepresented or made up.
It’s like Google’s thing where they pull short answers to questions from popular websites (like wikipedia) but dialed to 11.
I do not mean to be dense but I don’t follow how your comment applies to mine.
From the wikipedia article you didn’t read:
The Marshall Plan’s role in the rapid recovery of Western Europe has been debated. Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe since the evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway. The Marshall Plan grants were provided at a rate that was not much higher in terms of flow than the previous UNRRA aid and represented less than 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951,[110] which would mean an increase in GDP growth of only 0.3%.[7] In addition, there is no correlation between the amount of aid received and the speed of recovery: both France and the United Kingdom received more aid, but West Germany recovered significantly faster.[7]
Criticism of the Marshall Plan became prominent among historians of the revisionist school, such as Walter LaFeber, during the 1960s and 1970s. They argued that the plan was American economic imperialism and that it was an attempt to gain control over Western Europe just as the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe economically through the Comecon. In a review of West Germany’s economy from 1945 to 1951, German analyst Werner Abelshauser concluded that “foreign aid was not crucial in starting the recovery or in keeping it going”. The economic recoveries of France, Italy, and Belgium, Cowen argues, began a few months before the flow of US money. Belgium, the country that relied earliest and most heavily on free-market economic policies after its liberation in 1944, experienced swift recovery and avoided the severe housing and food shortages seen in the rest of continental Europe.[132]
Former US Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan gives most credit to German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard for Europe’s economic recovery. Greenspan writes in his memoir The Age of Turbulence that Erhard’s economic policies were the most important aspect of postwar Western European recovery, even outweighing the contributions of the Marshall Plan. He states that it was Erhard’s reductions in economic regulations that permitted Germany’s miraculous recovery, and that these policies also contributed to the recoveries of many other European countries. Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate and low taxes. Japan saw a large infusion of US investment during the Korean War.[133]
compare the US to what France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal did trying to hang on to their colonies and extract as much wealth from them as possible. Not to mention how many citizens of those countries are proud of that!
I was not suggesting the people can’t be proud of the not-good things their country does-- only that they shouldn’t. Also: whataboutism never defends any given position or stance; don’t rely on it too much, if at all.
I see you’re speaking for yourself.
I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that the United States isn’t generally pretty racist and that I’m just projecting? Or was this just a halfhearted attempt at an ad hominem attack? Elaborate please.
It’s still failing for me. Just checked.
Something weird is going on with that link. I can navigate to it from a link on the live updates, but if I click it directly, I get a 404. I copied my link from my browser, not from the OP.
Link to a similar story: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/politics/hunter-biden-house-republicans-amicus-brief/
Since the OP’s link is dead.
You cheeky bastard; you got me.
Trademark infringement, as opposed to copyright infringement, is all about customer confusion. If my vacuum repair shop is called 𝕏, then it’s not likely to cause customer confusion if a sandwich shop opens up and brands themselves as 𝕏.
This may be why there are so many different X trademarks, and why none of them “went after” each other.
If I remember correctly, Meta’s does pertain to social media, but as far as I know they’re not using it, so it might get messy there.
Also, in case it’s not clear. The 𝕏 is just a normal unicode character. Dude couldn’t even be bothered to pay someone to make a logo for him.
Isn’t this functionally the same thing? What happens to smaller companies in this hypothetical? Are you not assuming that they get pushed out of the market shortly thereafter?
I am assuming this. I am assuming that we’re at the bottom of this technology’s sigmoid curve, there is going to be a ton of growth in a relatively short amount of time. I guess we’ll have to wait to see which one of us has a better prediction.
You have described the state of LLMs right now. Programming languages seem like a perfect fit for a LLM; they’re extremely structured and meticulously (well, mostly) defined. The concepts and algorithms used not overly complex for a LLM. There doesn’t need to be much in the way of novel creativity create solutions for standard use cases. The biggest difficulty I’ve seen is just getting the prompting clear enough. I think a majority of the software engineering field is on the chopping block, just like the “art for hire” crowd. People pushing the limits of the fields will be safe but that’s a catch 22, isn’t it? If low-level entry is impossible, how does one get to be a high-level professional?
And even if we take your [implied] stance that this is the top of the S-curve and LLMs aren’t going to get much better-- it will still be a useful tool for human programmers to increase productivity and reduce available jobs.