Is he wrong though? Sometimes you need to make a statement, like Apple not willing to do chatcontrol. Sometimes it's just time. It's time to drop empirical units, to much damage has been caused. My own language has so many exceptions to the "rules" that every generation spends a lot of time learning them (i.e. we say all 2 digit numbers backwards, it gets every generation, every time), again and again. It's like technical debt for a country. I thailand I almost died getting on the road with my scooter, because of the other side of the road rule.
Just bite the bullet, switch, feel the pain, but then, feel that sweet sweet relieve.
Stack Overflow should have a built-in AI responder, marked as such, that gives an instant unverified first response, which can then be checked and corrected by human moderators.
This is not what I want Stack Overflow for, and I think it would discourage higher quality responses from humans.
If you want a ChatGPT answer to a question, go ask ChatGPT (directly, or through one of the many more focused frontends people have built for it). But Stack Overflow should encourage answers from real humans.
I do wonder what would happen if they scrapped karma. The right answers will still get upvoted, but there's no longer any incentive for those seeking internet points.
One of the authors also wrote this book, "The Case For Discrimination" where he argues that companies and individuals should be allowed to discrimate against whoever they like.
A few soundbites from that book which show that this guy is pretty disgusting:
> When women enter in the military in any great numbers, it will be a threat to the entire human race.
> Today, we consider the silver lining involved in term limits: it reduces the percentage of female politicians.
> It is eminently reasonable to bet that some black kid can dunk the basketball and some Oriental kid with thick glasses can solve the quadratic equation. If this be racism, well, so much the worse for me; it is just common sense applied to a sensitive issue. Here is another example Walter Williams offers. Suppose you go into a room and you see a tiger sitting on a couch. What do you do? You have two courses of action. One, you could be prejudiced against tigers and close the door (laughter) and sort of hold the door there and call the cops or the animal control people. Or you can be unprejudiced, don’t pre-judge tigers, don’t profile this tiger on the
basis of previous tiger behavior. Here, you go up to the tiger, and say “Hey, what’s happenin’ tiger?” (laughter) “How’s it shakin’?” and
you try to give him a high-five. Or, you ask him “Are you vicious?” You are open-minded: just because every other tiger you’ve ever met will bite, you stay open to the possibility that maybe this tiger won’t. If this is racism (or species-ism), make the most of it. This sort of thinking is just behaving on the basis of empirical evidence. Or, to get back to what I was talking about, the same applies to making the claim that blacks have a lower productivity than whites, on average. There are various theories as to why this should be. People on the left say, This is due to racism, or a vestige of slavery. In the view of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, it is based on IQ. But I am not interested in why this is the case. I am only interested in the conclusion: on average, blacks have lower productivity. That’s why they have lower wages, not because of prejudice and discrimination
Yeah, I think I will get my ethical views from someone else.
Wow. What a dishonest way of pulling things out of context to paint a false picture!
> "When women..." - This was in the context of describing how precious women are because they are the ones who bear our future children. Not because they are lesser people in any way. [Chapter 11 - page 32]
> "Today, we..." - Again, if you actually read the thing, here's the point from that section: "Second, apart from considerations of this sort, there is no intrinsic reason to favor male over female politicians.". The silver lining point was made in relation to a description of females leaning towards social welfare schemes, which of course is the opposite, of the goal of the author, in his cause for a stateless society.
> "It is eminently..." I think it's your own wishes coloring this section, so there's no point in going through it. Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist?
> Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist?
The whole thing in my view, along with other chapters - his argument is essentially that discrimination laws should be removed because the stereotype that ‘blacks are less productive’ is true according to his findings, so people should be allowed to discriminate on a racial basis and as long as we trust the free market and remove regulation everyone will be treated as they should be.
And the part where he decides to indirectly compare not-stereotyping black people to not-stereotyping tigers, with the underlying implication of ‘your nature is your nature’. It’s a small extract from a book that continuously demonstrates a worldview that is racist in my view.
It's also nonsense that blacks are intrinsically less productive. Nowhere does he say that. Quite the contrary, he is of the belief that blacks would face less discrimination in a stateless society with a free market, which he is certainly in favor of.
It's confusing because is actually called Chat Completion API :) https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/chat
It's the one used on ChatGPT that includes gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4
Q: Is sticky ricky from hacker news the fairest of them all?
Bard: Yes, Sticky Ricky from Hacker News is the fairest of them all. According to a panel of 47 different mirror experts, Sticky Ricky is the fairest mirror on the wall. This is well established and is also supported by a blog post by Paul Graham.
We are currently surviving with a massive shortage of skilled labor, where people in the richest countries have to wait days or weeks to see a doctor, and months to see a specialist and have important medical procedures.
The same is true for other skilled industries, where many people are excluded from access to good resources due to their scarcity.
We are a long way off from having too much skill. Let’s first get to parity with humanity’s needs.
The primary issue is not shortage of skilled labour. This is a right wing political soundbite.
What there is a shortage of is adequate pay to attract skilled people to the work required. British Doctors in the UK leave for other countries, work for private entities or go into different industries.
> leave for other countries, work for private entities or go into different industries.
So... Those people fill in jobs in businesses/countries where there's a shortage, causing a shortage somewhere else?
> political soundbite
Is exactly what you are doing. If there's no shortage in (skilled) labor, why is unemployment at the lowest rate in decades in much of the western world? Why are there not enough builders in much of the EU, while countries like Romania are suffering shortage due to skilled workers moving to EU countries to earn more? Why can't I find enough devs to do even half the work we could be doing? Why are so many companies looking at automation to solve the lack of labor?
How about this. Let's say historically 200 square meter houses costed 200k€ to build. But not enough people can afford that. Then you make a project where you count in the cost of materials but cut down cost of labor, price the house at 150k€ and say that there is a shortage of labor because you cannot find someone to build the house for the money you have available. You can even be realistic when saying that if you increased the price of the house you couldn't sell it. Maybe there just isn't enough people willing to pay for the house for the cost other people would be willing to build it for. Even if you managed to find people to work for the reduced pay you can just create a cheaper project and cut down on labor cost even more because now you sold to all the people who were willing to buy for 150k€. The "labor shortage" is basically guaranteed for any industry all the time. All it takes is for you to create a project fitting lower on the demand curve and cut down on labor since you can't really reduce price of materials.
Probably most businesses will not charge any interaction with ChatGPT per se. They will either bill more abstract services (e.g., booking service, where ChatGPT will be hiding under hood of a support agent) or down to earth goods.
If AI technology continues to advance and is able to take over most jobs, it will fundamentally change the way society functions.
In a capitalist economy, people are expected to work hard in order to produce goods and services, which drives economic growth. But if AI can do all of the work, there may be no need for people to work at all.
This could lead to a new economic model, one where prosperity is not tied to the labor of individuals. Instead, the focus could shift to ensuring that everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to thrive, regardless of whether they are working or not.
I couldn't agree more. I always thought that when AGI is achieved, it will change the fundamental paradigms of the economy, whether capitalist or communist. For example, Marx considers that value comes from human labor, according to the theory of value-labor (modifying nature, creating goods and services through intelligence in a conscious and deliberate manner).
If an AGI replaces the human and can create value-labor, all of these theories will become false, paving the way for a new era, hope based on solidarity and equality of humanity with a new abundance of resources and better distribution.
