Satans Little Helper

Interesting piece in the economist by a Chinese expert on Russia. Consider this a sign that China's relationship with Russia is under strain. Note that the fact this piece comes from China is what makes it meaningful. Or rather, carry considerable weight.

"up yours" He's such a fine adult Anyone seen his interview with Daniel Dennett? So much cringe. Was hoping for some good arguments. But it's another classic "Jordan Peterson tries his hands on philosophy and fails". It was mostly about Peterson and his ideas. Kinda like watching Bill Maher. But less fun. Dennett kept his friendly loveable giant schtick going. As opposed to, say, Zizek, who had none of it during their session.

^^^ my thoughts in a nutshell It sounds like a mishmash of material that's already out there. But if this catches on (meaning: people are making money with this), lawsuits will follow. That Motown tune sounds like Stevie Wonder. I'm no lawyer, but to me this is a new kind of sampling. Generative sampling, if you will. If it is allowed, there's going to be plenty of push to make it illegal.

*prints a "Capitalism is evil" cup for decibal cooper so he can network with like-minded people

The north face logo was too subtle. Black on black. Rob hates his influencer role! nice pics, wunderbar!

there's already siri? and you can copy paste text from images. ai is already everywhere. built in ability to summarise texts is nice. built in function to transcribe audio. i'm seeing plenty positives.

I understand your concerns. And to a degree they are valid. One thing to take into account though is the growing lack of nurses. So the scenario AI where AI is seriously looked at for being a viable option, is the scenario where people otherwise wouldn't receive care. When it comes to responsibility, I'd normally expect these technologies to be part of the care people receive when being treated by some care organisation. As is currently the case. And the responsibility will likewise be similar to what is currently the case. Or in other words, these technologies should be brought to clients/patients similar to other technologies which are currently being brought to clients/patients within the healthcare system. Like a prescription by a certified doctor. What is so frustration about this article in gizmodo is that it starts from the assumption that it's about cost reduction. It seems completely blind for the bigger problem which is the growing shortage of nurses. (which is a world wide issue btw)

He did say "they genuinely have a life that is no longer worth living" though. I can understand why that would trigger a bunch of people. To me his point was clear. Which you refer to as well. The funny thing was I had to rewatch it a bunch of times, because I only heard his broader argument, and listened beyond that specific comment. I just assume he misspoke - call it the benefit of the doubt, if you will - as I believe he was obviously trying to make another point. To me it was *just* an inconsistency within his broader argument. Disclaimer: I had seen some youtubes of this guy before. And although I do think he puts some valuable content online, I can also see why he can come across as a *cunt* at times. Take for example, the next clip. Even though I don't necessarily agree with everything he's saying here (his premise and a bunch of other generalisations), I can understand his perspective and what he attempts to be doing here. To me, there is some usefulness to it. Despite his premise about the world being a bad place, and all that. In short: it's about some kind of meta-mindfulness on what it's like being happy or unhappy. Does this mean I think everyone should agree with me? No, def not. There's nothing here I expect to change peoples minds about him. And I don't think everyone will take something useful from this clip. I'm just willing to go there with him, despite his premise. I can understand other people logging out after that first minute. Which is fine. This is not north Korea.

Where did he say he tells his clients their life may not be worth living? He says that many (half) of his clients who are suicidal don’t have mental pathologies, but are in a genuinely rough spot in their life (such that they think their life is not worth living). It wasn’t judgmental as far as I can tell. I honestly don’t get why the guy in the clip warranted a “this cunt”.

it's 2024 and we're still talking about the 2020 election. marvellous! perhaps if i don't vote this time there will be less talk about the 2024 election

"It also caused a decline in science"

Yes! As soon as you need to correct chatGPT it's over. And also, as soon as it starts to write a solution, but in the end starts to correct itself and completely starts over. Another red flag. That's when chatGPT starts to get weird. Often, in hindsight it's because the question was too broad and/or complex. Sometimes it can take me a day to get to the right set of questions. Really can't comment on your specific situation. Feeding it error messages might help. But I'm sure you've already tried that. Not telling you anything new, I'm afraid. It's just that my current intuition/experience about ChatGPT giving helpful code is about optimising the set of questions. And yes, you do need to define a problem. That's the art of it. Within a google challenge thats different to real life issues, obvsly. You need to "tell" ChatGPT what it needs to do. Not necessarily how, btw. It can produce the required algorithm all by itself. In the end, it's the proverbial "stochastic parrot" which returns the most probable sequence of words/code to an input. The input defines the output.

I have some pretty good experiences with using chatGPT (4,0) for writing functions so far though! But I've noticed it's a bit of an art to ask the right questions. Basically, the idea is that ChatGPT could give the right answer/code, IF it is being asked the right question. So you're searching for the right questions. And be careful to not ask too many questions in one session. Because the longer the chat, the worse ChatGPT performs. After a while, it does become rubbish. So basically, if you haven't got a good solution after three questions, you're better off starting over anew with a different approach. As opposed to keep on trying in the same chat. Because it will hallucinate after a while. A while ago a got an invitation for the Google Foobar challenge (which is a story in and of itself: https://itsmohitt.medium.com/things-you-should-know-about-google-foobar-invitation-703a535bf30f). And without much Python-experience I got ChatGPT to write the solutions successfully. After a bunch of successful challenges, I got asked if it was OK if a Google recruiter would approach me. But it ended there, because Google ended the Foobar challenge (https://foobar.withgoogle.com) That was just last month or so. Around February. Right around the time Google pushed their *woke* Gemini generative AI. And lost considerable value in the stock markets. And I guess they noticed themselves it was fairly easy to pass the Google Foobar challenge without much programming knowledge. (I do have a background in AI/Computer Science though. I'm just not into programming. I'd rather have ChatGPt generate the code for me) Possibly a combination of the two: they need to fire a lot of people, and their particular way of looking for the right people wasn't working because of ChatGPT.

The "I'm old" is the new "I'm drunk" ! I agree though. /continues programming in LISP /gets cancelled

LOL https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/06/hypervaccinated-man-217-covid-jabs-no-side-effects-germany Allegedly, he's now working in Mega Man games as Magnet Man