mountainriver

joined 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

That's the one, thank you.

German pilot, and crash in France, not French pilot. Second pilot locking out the captain, not the other way around. Otherwise my memory seem to have served.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (6 children)

This was so stupid.

A hijacking happens when passengers overflow into the cockpit from the cabin.

Oh no! A little kid has been invited to have a look! Passenger overflow! Hijacking!

His attempt at solution isn't as cringe worthy, if one overlooks the reasoning. Separating the cabin from the pilots is a way of preventing hijacking that has been attempted, but it has problems. Notably if the pilots get acute medical emergency or indeed if the pilot steer the plane into the ground.

Some ten years ago a french pilot locked out his second and ran the plane into the ground. For increased safety the after 911 the door to the cabin could only be opened from the inside.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

The picture at top of the blog post is Sam Altman, the guy saving the world from the AI he is creating.

And yeah, he looks like that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Tiired of picking out gifts the recipient don't need or want? Here at Giftr we have partnered with Amazon to bring you Shit-as-a-service!

Just prompt our chat-bot and we will send a gift to a statistically similar address!

If it never arrives? Well, they didn't want it anyway! Giftr!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think it is a combination of:

  1. Governor of major state.
  2. Has nice hair. Real generic politician look.
  3. Polls showing "generic democrat" beating Trump.
  4. Not super old.
  5. Have I mentioned the hair?
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok, point on language.

But I thought LLMs were machine learning, or rather a particular application of it? Have I misunderstood that? Isn't it all black boxed matrixes of statistical connections?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

I have so far seen two working AI applications that actually makes sense, both in a hospital setting:

  1. Assisting oncologists in reading cancer images. Still the oncologists that makes the call, but it seems to be of use to them.
  2. Creating a first draft when transcribing dictated notes. Listening and correcting is apparently faster for most people than listening and writing from scratch.

These two are nifty, but it doesn't make a multi billion dollar industry.

In other words the bubble is bursting and the value / waste ratio looks extremely low.

Say what you want about the Tulip bubble, but at least tulips are pretty.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Here it sounds like he is criticising the parliamentary system were the legislative elects the executive instead of direct election of the executive. Of course both in parliamentary and presidential (and combined) systems a number of voting systems are used. The US famously does not use FPTP for presidential elections, but instead uses an electoral college.

So to be very charitable, he means a parliamentary system where it's hard to depose the executive. I don't think any parliamentary system uses 60 % (presumably of votes or seats in parliament) to depose a cabinet leader, mostly because once you have 50% aligned the cabinet leader you presumably have an opposition leader with a potential majority. So 60% is stupid.

If you want a combined system where parliament appoints but can't depose, Suriname is the place to be. Though of course they appoint their president for a term, not indefinitely. Because that's stupid.

To sum up: stupid ideas, expressed unclearly. Maybe he should have gone to high school.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

If you mean swapped for a worker in a low wage country cosplaying as AI for minimum wage for a billion dollar company, then you have a point. Though using Bostrom's positive reinforcement bullshit is the opposite of treating someone fairly.

But I see elsewhere that you didn't mean that.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

"Because we got paid, cause we got paid, cause we got pa-aid!"

To the tune of "Then I got high" by Afroman.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

The famous story about a man using a drug that sets free the a-hole version of himself?

Oh, that was the drug! It was cocaine all along!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've used SMTP2go. It was adequate for the needs of the organisation I worked for.

 

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 ›