I feel a little anxious as soon as I read Trigger Warning
I feel a lot more anxious when a show dumps graphic violence or ear piercing screams on me with no warning.
Warnings tend to at least let me adjust my TV volume in advance. Much better than those YouTube clips or TikTok videos that try to blow out my speakers in the first five seconds
I don’t work at Amazon, but we have a similar system. I’ve gone all-in on a couple of subordinates saying they deserved a 4/5 for this or that work. And because they were new-hires, I eventually got the grades punched through after a bunch of hemming and hawing.
Also advocated for my own higher-than-average marks on a few occasions. And just arguing the case gave me the grade as often as not. If everyone in the department had been as stubborn and insistent, I don’t know that they’d have given the whole floor these grades. But the squeaky wheel…
I’ve got a few friends who work at Amazon, and while the story certainly sounds embellished and a bit too “just-so”, the corporate attitude of make-work to justify a promotion even when its a waste of time and resources rings true as a bell.
Did this guy actually oversee a fully transition to a new service and waste a bunch of internal time and money for a system that’s sub-optimal by any conceivable measure? Idk, maybe. If he’d just written “Twitter” instead of “Amazon”, I’d have taken it at face value no problem.
Did this guy author an overly-complex plan as part of his promotional material, get it vetted and reviewed and rubber stamped by a bunch of friendly higher-ups because they wanted to justify his promotion, and then stuck on a shelf marked “Maybe we’ll do this in 2029 if we’re not busy with something else”? Equally likely.
Does Amazon have a bunch of bread and butter break-fix work they could be dedicating staff to, rather than chasing the next digital White Whale so they can feel cutting edge? Yeah, no shit. Absolutely.
Maduro’s grip on power relies fundamentally on electoral manipulation.
All the “Maduro cheated to win the election” stuff comes from the same people insisting Biden cheated to win in 2020 and Obama cheated in 2008.
Following the contested 2024 election, Maduro launched “Operation Tun Tun” (Operación Tun Tun), a brutal crackdown described by experts as “state terrorism”.
Were these experts affiliated with Elliot Abrams?
Conservatives do love self-owning with the anti-Castro rhetoric
My company recently acquired another firm that tried to outsource the entire IT department and proceeded to shit itself to death.
Go ahead cowards. Replace me with a computer. I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine.
Nowadays they are maybe one tier above fast food workers.
:-/
Having worked both jobs, I could point to a few differences
Wilson and Reagan left office before the dementia really took hold
Wilson had intended to seek a third term in 1920, but was fully incapacitated and bedridden by October of 1919
Multiple Reagan staffers confirm he was fully in the thrall of dementia by his final year.
Wilson and Reagan would suggest otherwise
But Trump was showing early signs of dementia during his first term.
That’s what was reported. But, again, none of this reporting is reliable. It’s all just court gossip.
The difference here is evidence.
It’s credulity. Liberals are more receptive to “conservatives in decline” than they are when it is reported of their own politicians.
That’s why Feinstein got to die in office without facing any kind of serious challenger. And why Schumer will benefit from the same.
I don’t think we’re so far from having machines that pass the Turing test 100%.
The Turing test isn’t solved with technology, its solved with participants who are easier to fool or more sympathetic to computer output as humanly legible. In the end, it can boil down to social conventions far more than actual computing capacity.
Per the old Inglorious Bastards gag
You can fail the Turing Test not because you’re a computer but because you’re a British computer.
Because all the development has been focused on fakery rather than understanding and replicating consciousness, we’re close to the point where we can have a fake consciousness that would fool anyone.
We’ve ingested a bunch of early 21st century digital markers for English language Western oriented human speech and replicated those patterns. But human behavior isn’t limited to Americans shitposting on Reddit. Neither is American culture a static construct. As the spread between the median user and the median simulated user in the computer dataset diverges, the differences become more obvious.
Do we think the designers at OpenAI did a good enough job to keep catching up to the current zeitgeist?
If you can’t find ample evidence of human sentience then you either aren’t looking or are deliberately misreading the definition of the term.
If you can’t find ample evidence that computers aren’t sentient, same goes.
You can definitely put blinders on and set yourself up to be fooled, one way or another. But there’s a huge difference between “unassailable proof” and “ample convincing data”.
Which politicians, exactly?
Trump, back during his first term (the rumors about him being on death’s door with COVID were rampant). Biden, for nearly his entire term in office. Hillary was going to die in the middle of her 2016 run. I remember people insisting Vladimir Putin was on his way out any day now all the way back in 2005 - there’s even a wikipedia article about how many times his death was misreported. And there’s an endless parade of rumors about Kim Jung Un keeling over, Ayatollah Khomanie being terminally ill, ffs “Castro is dying, get in the boats!” was a thing people said about Fidel from his mid-fifties until he handed over office to his brother Raul in 2008.
Pretty much anyone the US government / media doesn’t like gets a scattershot “dude could die any day now” headline from time to time. And the more reactionary the source, the more credulous the allegations.
Get on Kalshi and place your bets.
But all this naked speculation about how Trump is on death’s door has been going on since he was running for President the first time way back in 2015.
I dont think we can currently prove that anyone other than ourselves are even conscious.
You have to define consciousness before you can prove it. I might argue that our definition of consciousness is fuzzy. But not so fuzzy that “a human is conscious and a rock is not” is up for serious debate.
The people around me look and act and appear conscious, but I’ll never know.
You’re describing Philosophical Zombies. And the broad answer to the question of “How do I know I’m not just talking to a zombie?” boils down to “You have to treat others as you would expect to be treated and give them the benefit of the doubt.”
Mere ignorance is not evidence of a thing. And when you have an abundance of evidence to the contrary (these other individuals who behave and interact with me as I do, thus signaling all the indications of the consciousness I know I possess) defaulting to the negative assertion because you don’t feel convinced isn’t skeptical inquiry, its cynical denialism.
The catch with AI is that we have ample evidence to refute the claims of consciousness. So a teletype machine that replicates human interactions can be refuted as “conscious” on the grounds that its a big box full of wires and digital instructions which you know in advance was designed to create the illusion of humanity.
You could tell me my consciousness was uploaded and show me a version of me that was indistinguishable from myself in every way
I just don’t think this is a problem in the current stage of technological development. Modern AI is a cute little magic act, but humans (collectively) are very good at piercing the veil and then spreading around the discrepancies they’ve discovered.
You might be fooled for a little while, but eventually your curious monkey brain would start poking around the edges and exposing the flaws. At this point, it would not be a question of whether you can continue to be fooled, but whether you strategically ignore the flaws to preserve the illusion or tear the machine apart in disgust.
I still wouldn’t believe it experiences or feels anything as I do, even though it claims to do so
People have submitted to less. They’ve worshipped statues and paintings and trees and even big rocks, attributing consciousness to all of them.
But Animism is a real escoteric faith. You believe it despite the evidence in front of you, not because of it.
I’m putting my money down on a future where large groups of people believe AIs are more than just human, they’re magical angels and demons.
digital neural networks seem like decent enough approximations of their biological counterparts to warrant caution
No they don’t. Digital networks don’t act in any way like a electro-chemical meat wad programmed by DNA.
Might as well call a helicopter a hummingbird and insist they could both lay eggs.
We cannot know who or what possesses consciousness.
That’s sophism. You’re functionally asserting that we can’t tell the difference between someone who is alive and someone who is dead
And in another five years, I’m sure he’ll look even worse. But will he still be breathing out that noxious brew of smarm and bigotry?
Well There’s Your Problem, a podcast about engineering disasters with slides.