mountainriver

joined 2 years ago
[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Overheard my kids, one of them had some group project in school and the other asked who they had ended up in group with. After hearing the names, the reaction was "they are good, none of them will use AI".

So as always kids that actually does something in group projects doesn't want to end up in a group with kids that won't contribute. Difference is just that instead of just slacking off and doing nothing they will today "contribute" AI slop. And as always the main lesson from group projects in school is avoid ending up in a group with slackers.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 7 points 3 days ago (4 children)
  1. You get better at being smart by INT-grinding. A machine could be INT-grinding the whole time. It's like in Oblivion if you wanted to grind Speed you could go into a city, stand in a doorway and place something heavy on the jump key on the keyboard. Then while you take care of the dishes or something, your character grinds. But for INT!

If it gets smart enough it will start finding hacks, like those INT- increasing potions in Morrowind that increased your Alchemy so you could make even better INT-potions.

It might even get smart enough to escape the Elder Scrolls; and start playing another game!

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Reads "Does AI make researchers more productive? What? Why would it?"

Thinks "When does statistically likely text without relation to truth make researchers more productive? Well, when they are faking research"

Gets to article. Article is about faking research about AI making researchers more productive.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 3 points 6 days ago

I signed it but had the same assumption that it wouldn't pass with 400k signatures over the first 362 days. But it did! The graph the last three days must look vertical.

Anyone who's eligible and wants to sign it can still do so today, Saturday 17th. To show the popular support.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The marketing documents provided with the photo say there is “no regulatory oversight — U.S.D.A. confirmed in writing.” It’s not clear what the company means by that. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Seth W. Christensen, said he was not able to confirm whether the agency had corresponded with Haemanthus. “U.S.D.A. does regulate vet diagnostics,” including blood testing, Mr. Christensen said.

Ah, yes, medicine. A field without regulations. Hope they have some non-scammers in the family that can take care of the kids.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've never looked into how they do the phrenology but was immediately struck by the "female" skull having larger forehead. So they say women are big brained?

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I work with IT at a STEM company, but the typical education is chemistry. People are grounded in measurements and real world practicality, but sci fi is also rather popular.

Some people got hype last year, but most people was more in "new stuff, will this mess with my work flow?" mode. After getting and evaluating tools, some small uses were identified, mostly first draft of meeting minutes. Trying for themselves seems to have quelled the hype. Now there is mostly concern for how AI processes in surrounding companies will affect our products and sales.

So from that small measurement it feels like the hype is breaking. We have a sane and reality based management though, and that helps.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Hm, I don't believe in biblical apocalypse stuff, but if I did I wouldn't think that the climate activist gambling her life to get supplies to the starving population in Gaza is the anti-christ.

I think a power hungry, wannabe vampire, billionaire with companies named after corrupting artifacts, more fits the bill.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A tangent: the tablet.

Why is the tablet ok for taking notes? Is it banned from the wifi? Does it lack a browser? Or are todays students unaware that most sites can be visited without an app?

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 3 points 2 weeks ago

Really good.

You are quite right in describing the zero interest rate as central banks taking the foot of the brake. Similar to how a brake can decrease speed but not increase it, the interest rate can destroy demand but not create economic activity.

The reason for not using tried and effective method of Keynesian spending is of course ideological. In the euro zone it was ruthlessly enforced by the ECB and the Commission were the deficits created by automatic stabilisers were taken as breaking the Maastricht treaty and those countries had to be put through austerity.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I also wonder if revealing the fact I’ve looked at job listings might hurt my standing.

If honesty isn't the best policy you can always work in that while looking into that company you noticed that they have no one in your role and in fact is actually hiring their first. You don't have to mention where and how you found it, people will probably assumed you used a search engine.

 

Capgemini has polled executives, customer service workers and consumers (but mostly executives) and found out that customer service sucks, and working in customer service sucks even more. Customers apparently want prompt solutions to problems. Customer service personnel feels that they are put in a position to upsell customers. For some reason this makes both sides unhappy.

Solution? Chatbots!

There is some nice rhetorical footwork going on in the report, so it was presumably written by a human. By conflating chatbots and live chat (you know, with someone actually alive) and never once asking whether the chatbots can actually solve the problems with customer service, they come to the conclusion that chatbots must be the answer. After all, lots of the surveyed executives think they will be the answer. And when have executives ever been wrong?

 

This isn't a sneer, more of a meta take. Written because I sit in a waiting room and is a bit bored, so I'm writing from memory, no exact quotes will be had.

A recent thread mentioning "No Logo" in combination with a comment in one of the mega-threads that pleaded for us to be more positive about AI got me thinking. I think that in our late stage capitalism it's the consumer's duty to be relentlessly negative, until proven otherwise.

"No Logo" contained a history of capitalism and how we got from a goods based industrial capitalism to a brand based one. I would argue that "No Logo" was written in the end of a longer period that contained both of these, the period of profit driven capital allocation. Profit, as everyone remembers from basic marxism, is the surplus value the capitalist acquire through paying less for labour and resources then the goods (or services, but Marx focused on goods) are sold for. Profits build capital, allowing the capitalist to accrue more and more capital and power.

Even in Marx times, it was not only profits that built capital, but new capital could be had from banks, jump-starting the business in exchange for future profits. Thus capital was still allocated in the 1990s when "No Logo" was written, even if the profits had shifted from the good to the brand. In this model, one could argue about ethical consumption, but that is no longer the world we live in, so I am just gonna leave it there.

In the 1990s there was also a tech bubble were capital allocation was following a different logic. The bubble logic is that capital formation is founded on hype, were capital is allocated to increase hype in hopes of selling to a bigger fool before it all collapses. The bigger the bubble grows, the more institutions are dragged in (by the greed and FOMO of their managers), like banks and pension funds. The bigger the bubble, the more it distorts the surrounding businesses and legislation. Notice how now that the crypto bubble has burst, the obvious crimes of the perpetrators can be prosecuted.

In short, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the damage.

If in a profit driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations profit, in the hype driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations hype. To point and laugh is damage minimisation.

view more: next ›