I demand that does technological experiments involving children be supervised by someone who understands the ethical and moral effects it can have. Its not like a YouTube video.
We don’t move fast and break things when the things are kids, you maniacs
It was amusing for a moment watching all these logical technical people act like religious fundamentalists about AI, fitting problems to the predetermined solution, but now it’s just upsetting how much the people with no empathy or understanding have decided they should run the world
> your opinion of kids needing a good human teacher is overfit to your experience of having those growing up
None of the AI stuff has been proven to be safe or effective for kids going thru an extremely important growth time for personality development and relational attachment. Your experience of having bad teachers doesn’t negate that the best way we know to enrich kids lives is to have effective and empathetic human teachers.
Reporting the behavior of that someone who is seen as authoritative by those outside the community on an open source project, who then openly critiques the open source project as full of flaws and the fault of the maintainer doesn't seem unprofessional to me.
> childish
Whats childish here is the behavior of one who is demanding others conform to their priorities, while lying to them in order to gain advantage. Saying "here's what he did" is just saying what he did - is it... professional to help other's hide their own behavior?
There’s no choice here, and often the companies are profitable, but if there is any stickiness to the product the customer gets the privilege of having a company they built trust with turn around and betray them with massively increased fees.
I made an educated guess that John Deere is roughly the size of Monsanto so in the tens of billions category, which is usually enough revenue to play really dirty with senators, regulators, lobbyists, and customers.
And how much they gave to behave is directly related to how much they donate to the election fund, because that is literally the world we are living in now, as every single tech CEO all know and behave as.
> Deere must pay $1 million collectively to the five states for antitrust enforcement costs and will be subject to strict compliance oversight for the next 10 years.
$1 million fine for probably $10 billion in profit. I know what lesson I'd learn if my only personal value was maximizing shareholder value. The compliance part can be dealt with later.
It’s 2026 what the customer wants is probably an indication of what not to do if you’re a hyperscaler.
Whoever ends up actually winning after the crash will be the ones who figure out the needs of users, not the needs of the financial machinations of the companies trying to grab land.
I'm not arguing against the improvements to the average person in the last 100 years, but I am saying the system that exists TODAY produces poverty, desperation and homelessness on the bottom end, and massive wealth to the top, and a hollowing out of the center, and that we should do something about it. Its easy to argue that it was the worker protections and safety that enabled the economy and the middle class. Since 1979 worker productivity and wages have diverged, and all the resources have funneled to the top.
> Instead of letting people become the best they can be, they will languish in average or low because the safety net allows them to just sit
We're not concerned with people being the best we can be. Else education wouldn't be on a shoestring budget, housing costs wouldn't force two parents to work with no pre-k childcare, our colleges wouldn't cost 10x that of other countries many of which are free, we'd provide healthcare not tied to employers so that people could take risks, we'd mandate maternity and paternity leave for parents so that they can bond with their children instead of leaving them with attachment disorders.
People are undeveloped for those reasons - it costs a lot of money and society is filled with middlemen maximizing the profit of every single human need. Our birth rate is horrible because its expensive, there is little hope for a better future, and there is no support within the country to have kids. We have a massive child poverty problem, and we can't even fund school lunches.
If you cared about people being the best, you'd care about that, not making sure that everyone gets punished. The system benefits business owners and investors, and everyone else serves them.
> I am not advocating for cutting protections for disabled people
> And they don't understand that most people just want a meaningful job, not handouts and not free stuff.
Wanting my tax dollars to go to children who can’t access food is not begging for a handout - you’re repeating middle school Republican propaganda at this point.
I’m a success story, but unlike you I’ve developed some empathy for the very real cycle of poverty I myself got out of, instead of the jingoistic “just create value”.
> They're in a small class of very privileged people, and they're pushing an ideology that has taken so many people from the world.
This is exactly how I feel about your ideology - that if only people would stop being a victim and think outside the box instead of complaining then they would see a better world. You’ve never dealt with disability or not being able bodied, you don’t see the value in anything other than what makes money.
There’s a spec of truth in it - some people turn their minds off and think of themselves as victims. I think of myself as a survivor, and a lucky one at that. I’ve overcome a lot and I can see where if many things outside of my control went the other way I could be dead right now. Wanting the path to be more clear for the next person is exactly the “see the world shine” that you advocate for.
We have the highest concentration of wealth ever in this country, because that’s what this system produces right now. Has it improved the world for the average person or made it worse?
You must not have ever worked for a company owned by one. The statement is not what I’ve heard, it’s what I’ve experienced, and it matches the experience of others in my large developer network.
It’s great for concentrating ownership and mass applying ruthless management tactics at scale, and for using IP as leverage to hollow out a company.
My mindset in the workplace is not about these facts, its more about what I present to people to help their worldview and advocate for a world where we don't just hold qualitative data (those who are doing well are likely to meet others who are doing well, people who vacation on a Yacht do not interact with people who don't take vacations), but also the trend and to advocate for policies that address the growing grotesque inequality and opportunity gap. Its hard to make people empathetic for others who they don't see, which is why I try to draw a line to the homeless population.
Everyone, everywhere, tries to optimize their local situation as best as they can with the skills and knowledge they have available. The further one gets into understanding how mental health works, the more one realizes that mindset is a result of experiences usually more than it is of willpower. People in poverty are exerting willpower to the maximum every single day. People are anxious for a reason, and depressed for a reason - these do not pop up like some contagious airborne virus, they're a result of the setting and society and their place in it.
I find it to not be acceptable if AI's trend is to degrade performance of both AI and humans at the same time, that's kinda not the goal, right? Why are we spending money to make us dumber?
I don't understand the logic here - a methodology to increase efficiency by 90% in training doesn't exist until it does - could you explain what you mean by "I don't see why it won't exist"? Are you seeing consistent gains by some process?
"I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills, can't you understand that?? What the hell is wrong with you people!?"
Sure and thats fair, there's probably many things that are good enough that I miss, but I'm talking about the most obvious possible websites being used regularly as sources in web search. Identifying poor sourcing or misinformation on the internet and what is a credible source has been a lifelong skill I've had to build from the early days of the web, and in the AI boom its only gotten more necessary to be able to not get taken by hucksters with billion dollar budgets.
> LLMs with sufficient scaling can become frontier AI researchers kicking off the exponential
The cost is already outrunning the benefit to a massive amount, and the predicted expotential is not here yet. I predict it'll always be around the corner, a $1T model won't get there, but it will "look promising", but we'll sadly run out of money for the $10T or $100T model..