mountainriver

joined 9 months ago
[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 7 points 2 days 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!

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 2 days 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?
[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 4 points 3 days 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?

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 7 points 1 week 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.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 6 points 1 week 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.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 11 points 1 week ago

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

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

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 8 points 1 week 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!

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 4 points 3 weeks ago

I think Viktor in "Viktor builds a bridge" can serve as a role model. A cliff, a shack and a sea bird as companion.

Just learn from Viktor's mistake. Don't build a bridge.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 9 points 3 weeks ago

So one one hand the CEO's want their minions back into office and on the other they want to replace them with AI's?

Sounds like a conundrum. Or a business opportunity!

Presenting Srvile! The brand new Servility as a Service company, with AI powered robots that will laugh at all boss jokes at the water cooler and say things like "That is such a great idea boss! Since I am an AI I can't realise that you are just regurgitating what you read on Xshitter!" and "We certainly need more AI to solve any problem!"

Call now to order!

(AI may at times be enhanced by remote human control for "quality control". Actual level of servility may vary and is not guaranteed.)

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 5 points 4 weeks ago

The kid herself mostly wants stories “about magic” and with protagonists of about her age.

The horror! What if she grows up reading books she actually likes? She might be developing her mind in ways not approved by her parents!

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

They are both stupid men who repeat stuff they hear to make them look good. So the question is who are this time the "very smart people" that are telling numbnuts like these two that nuclear war is survivable - and by extension winnable? Because if that is the US defense establishment, then yeah we might be cooked.

 

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 ›