This feels like an AI narrative, transcribed by a human.
1) Impromptu yoga class brunch. No one says "oh, who needs to top up their parking since we'll be an extra hour"; so it's technology at fault that they got a notification half way through, not the people involved? The consequence was no one got ticketed?
2) 6 people with 6 phones, some of them the "latest iPhones" scanned a QR code once each, after struggling; chose their meals, didn't pay via the app, and it created a shared bill with complete loss of who ordered what.
I have never used a QR code ordering system this bad. The only way this makes sense is if they all told a staff member what they were having from reading an online menu.
Paper menus would not have changed this. A restaurant wouldn't typically use a solution so bad, it'd be gone in a few weeks if they have any kind of autonomy.
How did these people live through COVID and never encounter a QR code they had to scan with a phone? Is this elderly yoga? Or ultra rich kids with butlers their entire lives? It doesn't make sense that they are so technologically illiterate any other way.
3) They all paid, but the only information they could see was the remaining amount unpaid. At the end, the last person paid; and the staff told them there was 24Dh outstanding - and this was a surprise. The last person just left without mentioning this, or their eyes don't work? How is having the only piece of information visible to you the bit that causes the surprise?
None of this makes sense to me as internally consistent. Yes, the writing style doesn't look ChatGPT flavoured, there are mistakes in it to appear more human; but the cognitive model of how things work seems to be utterly inhuman.
While having data/code stolen isn't ideal, there is a certain point where you need to assume it's already out there. There's actually more probability of harm from shady US companies imo, because people are less suspicious about data sovereignty
Simple example:
Who will renew the SSL cert?
Day 1: meh, no impact.
Day 2: meh, no impact.
Day 700: who the hell manages this and why are we making no revenue?
You might think that is laughable; what a pack of newbs!
But this stuff has already happened without even LLMs in the mix.
It is more like being a firefighter and being opposed to airlifting icebergs to drop on fires.
Sure, you'll get water eventually and you might even extinguish a fire; but how long does it take to organise and deliver, what can go wrong in the process, what are the consequences of a mistake like dropping it prematurely, and why are we ignoring the honking great big cheap river right next to the house fire we are fighting?
I disagree with the parts about Trump: he does know what he is doing. Not because it's a well crafted plan of 4D chess, but because he's deeply anxious/insecure and "lie with grandiosity" is a learned survival mechanism to protect his feelings from reality.
It's like expecting a fish to stop swimming - it feels like it's suffocating, it's going to panic and do everything it can to get back into the water, get moving again.
The fish isn't playing 4d chess, it's just flipping all over the place until it feels safe again, and then probably forget all of the chaos minutes later.
How much this is applicable to the other examples - Musk, Napoleon - unclear.
But saying they do "stupid" things without looking at why they might do stupid things is reductionist/overly simple/can PROBABLY be answered with psychology in most cases.
This model defines a few different categories of how people respond - "Withdrawal","Attack-Self" and "Avoidance", "Attack-Other".
If you were to look at your comments through the threads here, would you be able to classify your responses as matching any of the categories above?
As a hint, you may be surprised to learn the person with multiple comments in question I was referring to isn't you. Yet you've sought this out and decided the most suitable response to why are two groups posting responses at different rates is to attempt to relitigate an imagined argument.
- semantic data integration/triplestores/linking facts in a database.
- feature extraction from imagery / AI detection of objects as an alarm
- push to human operators
You or I might expect this to be held to a high standard - chaining facts together like this better be darned right before action is taken!
But what if the question their software solves isn't we look at a chain of evidence and act on it in a legal/just/ethical manner but we have decided to act and need a plausible pretext; akin to parallel construction?
When you assess it by that criteria, it works fantastically - you can just dump in loads and loads of data; get some wonky correlations out and go do whatever you like. Who cares if its wrong - double checking is hard work; someone else will "fix" it if you make a mistake; by lying, by giving you immunity from prosecution, by flying you out of state or going on the TV, or uh, well, that's a future you problem.
I think it's important to assess the quality of the comments - they aren't bringing facts, just stating opinions; doing so quickly and agreeing with each other. You can test this out - pick a few names on the comments that disagree, ctrl+f, and you'll quickly find one individual with 29 comments at the time of writing all over the thread; with a handful of others with 1-4 responses.
This is not actually what the majority of people think and feel.
IE; from recent polling
> 55%+ of Americans have “very little” confidence in ICE, while 16 percent only have "some".
That's ~71% of ordinary US folks; and I would wager many international folks are very clear eyed about the situation.
But why don't you see a ratio of 7/10 of top level comments critical? It's reasonable to assume that about half of those people are just keeping to themselves or part of the political middle that feel something is a "bit wrong"; but not quite enough to go yell into the internet about it. For the others, arguing is tiring and doesn't seem to change much. Watching the situation induces feelings of dread, despair or helplessness.
On the opposing side, that 29% of people are faced with the fact that they might actually be the "baddies" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY), and a good number of them are flooding conversations to prove they are in fact "not"... because admitting otherwise would mean they are actually doing something quite morally or ethically wrong by their own or their community standards. Since that would be unthinkable! the only logical reaction is to post frequently in shrill defense.
If you keep that in mind - the relative psychology of each group - it's much easier not to despair if "everyone" seems to be saying the opposite of what you would expect.
Oh, that's one blue state; right? What do the rest of Americans think?
> The Economist/YouGov poll, 55 percent of respondents said they had “very little” confidence in ICE, while 16 percent said they have “some” confidence in the agency. Sixteen percent said they have “quite a lot” of confidence in ICE and 14 percent said they have “a great deal.”
> As a Health Center staff member ('Victim-1') attempted to open the door for the volunteer, WILLIAMS purposefully leaned against the door, crushing Victim-1’s hand. Victim-1 yelled, "She’s crushing my hand," but WILLIAMS remained against the door, trapping Victim-1’s hand and injuring it.
> On the livestream on June 19, 2020, WILLIAMS stood within inches of the Health Center’s chief administrative officer and threatened to “terrorize this place” and warned that “we’re gonna terrorize you so good, your business is gonna be over mama.” Similarly, WILLIAMS stood within inches of a Health Center security officer and threatened “war.” WILLIAMS also stated that she would act by “any means necessary.”
A member of the conspiracy admitted to the planning; they have text messages and detail of deciding who will risk arrest, after going over the fact they'd be trespassing and violating the FACE act.
Do you think the administrative and medical staff present in 2020 would agree with you? That the group that blockaded, threatened and assaulted in one instance access to health services are in fact the victims here of government overreach?
ICE are engaging in violence, warrantless forced entry to homes, at least two shootings that border on murder, they even tried to force entry into an Ecuadorian embassy.
They are detaining citizens at random, relocating them physically and in some cases releasing them; if they don't die in detention due to lack of access to medical care.
If you cannot see how these activities should be observed, documented, protested whilst still standing for professed Amercian values...
Edit:
Ah excellent, downvotes without reply because facts are... uncomfortable!
Or did you place about 2-5 paragraphs per heading, with little connection between the ideas?
For example:
> Perhaps what some users are trying to express with concerns about ‘sycophancy’ is that when they paste information, they'd like to see the AI examine various implications rather than provide an affirming summary.
Did you, you personally, find any evidence of this? Or evidence to the opposite? Or is this just a wild guess?
Wait; nevermind that we're already moving on! No need to do anything supportive or similar to bolster.
> If so, anti-‘sycophancy’ tuning is ironically a counterproductive response and may result in more terse or less fluent responses. Exploring a topic is an inherently dialogic endeavor.
Is it? Evidence? Counter evidence? Or is this simply feelpinion so no one can tell you your feelings are wrong? Or wait; that's "vibes" now!
I put it to you that you are stringing together (to an outside observer using AI) a series of words in a consecutive order that feels roughly good but lacks any kind of fundamental/logical basis.
I put it to you that if your premise is that AI leads to a robust discussion with a back and forth; the one you had that resulted in "product" was severely lacking in any real challenge to your prompts, suggestions, input or viewpoints.
I invite you to show me one shred of dialogue where the AI called you out for lacking substance, credibility, authority, research, due dilligence or similar. I strongly suspect you can't.
Given that; do you perhaps consider that might be the problem when people label AI responses as sycophancy?
You work for Microsoft as an independent contractor, as a night watchman/groundskeeper. So do a number of others. You were hired because you and your crew of weirdos were writing the story of advanced gardening and building maintenace; which people including those at many famous and powerful companies used and found useful.
A number of years ago someone said "huh, maybe these guys should get funding", and a few others agree; and Microsoft ends up in charge of distributing that funding.
The above still happens. They have locked your computer with a ransomware message that says "we will give you back access if you get rid of one of you".
To lock your computer, which is airgapped, it would require someone with admin privileges to your computer to walk in and manually do this. It turns out one of your has colleagues done this, added an account for the Director of Night Maintenance at Microsoft to your machine.
You and almost all of the "paid employees", again, a number of whom are independent contractors, resign in protest; leaving only the person who tampered with your computer.
> The behavior Ruby Central exhibited was so egregious that I sincerely thought someone's account had been compromised at one point
During this chaos; which all happened between September 9 and September 18;
- at midday LA time/2:40pm New York time; Microsoft terminates the contract with one specific individual; who was the one they demanded the group gets rid of if they wanted access back
- 8 hours later, that person locks the doors; changes nothing else, etc.
Some basic analysis about the situation you need to do:
- Did the actions on September 19th, even if you believe it was a crime of the most serious nature, justify the actions on Sept 9-18 where Microsoft took access, said whoopsie, then did it again?
- Treating the Sept 19 actions as a crime; did the person who did it do so with a criminal intent? (Mens rea). Did they intend harm? Or were they indifferent to the harm caused? Should this be prosecuted, has that person provided justification or similar that could in any way be reasonable doubt?
- If the actions on September 19 are a crime in your viewpoint; would paying/influencing someone to lock the accounts of all of the maintainers also be a crime? Why or why not?
First off, was anything involved a "protected computer"? No, probably not, not by the legal definition there; yes by what we as laypeople would assume.
But, let's roll with the assumption it's "literally a crime" and not a civil matter; but apply that standard equally.
> (4)knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
* Is the draft novel/rubygems source code a thing of value? Yes. $5000 worth? Tricky to say with the open source licencing! But RC were distributing $ to maintain it; and that cost them more than $5000/year. Cost does not equal value; but I think we can argue yes, kinda here.
> (7)with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—
* Did anyone attempt to extort anyone else to remove a person? (Get rid of x if you want access back!)
* Did that have value? (Gee, I hope the treasurer didn't post, it was about the funding deadlines/only to have that walked back!) Also a bit murky as the value isn't coming from the extortion directly, only indirectly.
> (b)Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
* Did anyone conspire? (Two or more people agree to criminal act, followed by an overt act)
Can you plausibly see how if you try to apply US law to argue one individual on one side is a criminal; that same law would likely make the other side just as criminal; if not more so?
---
> none of the ones complaining were the original authors of gem nor bundler.
"I joined the team at a pivotal moment, in February 2010, as the 0.9 prototype was starting to be re-written yet another time into the shape that would finally be released as 1.0. By the time Carl, Yehuda, and I released version 1.0 together in August 2010, we had fully established the structure and commands that Bundler 2.7.2 still uses today."
IE: Claims to be a significant contributor, predating any "stewardship" by RubyCentral. I would argue this can be born out by contributions and the fact he proposed the darned merger with RC in the first place; and that merger assigns no intellectual property rights or similar.
Notice how this was taking over a GitHub repository from an entire team of maintainers, through deceit; and now we are all a few weeks in and you have seemingly accepted the narrative that this is now one bad apple justifies every action taken before and since, with no questions answered, with a wave of inconsistencies (it's about the money/no, the treasurer is wrong it's not about the money!), etc.
