Chrome going from one for-profit advertising company to another for-profit advertising company is not doing the âoepublic interestâ any good either
"Public interest" has become a codeword in the modern age. It now means, "most profitable outcome." FOSS would not immediately lead to profits for someone, so is no longer in the public interest.
Exactly what do I get for using your spyware?
You must have missed the memo. Tech companies are no longer interested in providing users with what they need or want. They are *ONLY* interested in what they can get out of users. Because that's what the already entrenched companies are doing. The problem is, now entries into the field aren't smart enough to realize that you have to attract a userbase before you exploit it. While saying, "We're gonna exploit the SHIT out of our users," may generate a brief flow of VC cash, it won't actually get you a userbase to exploit.
We left the age of user-focused software and services behind a few years back. Now it's, "fuck the user, gimme," time for tech companies. This dude is just trying to fit in.
Good Lord.....so a completely new person that doesn't know jack shit about the workplace or their new career, is going to be 'managing'. I didn't even need to read the rest of the AI drivel. That was enough right there to show was a dumbass idea this is.
From a business perspective, it's brilliant. AI agents do all the actual work, but there's a human "manager" to blame when one of them clustefucks the financial report or the inventory levels or something. Basically, if this scenario could actually be implemented, the humans would still be there to take the upper management beatings, while all actual work will be done by the machines. This is nightmare fuel beyond the "you'll all be out of a job" preaching most of the AI prophets have been spouting. This is, "You'll take your beatings and like it," level shit.
Like the good Doctor said on Babylon 5: "I think we lost interest in the future when all the things we were told were coming finally got here. It wasn't what we thought it would be."
Seething hatred of trump aside - at least in the US you have courts as a recourse.
Only if you have more money than the corporation behind whatever it is you think wronged you.
Congrats to Google's AI! They've reached stoner human status!
It might seem like they're spinning up this infrastructure so that people don't have to work to eat,
I would be surprised if anyone was naive enough to believe this.
when a truer goal for them is that people won't be able to work OR eat
That's not the goal, the goal is to make a pile of money. What you describe is a side effect. It's an important distinction because as we all know: putting people out of work and starving them intentionally is evil; putting people out of work and starving them in the pursuit of greater value for the shareholders is capitalism, and is to be celebrated.
That distinction won't mean a whole hell of a lot to the starving masses. Which is why so many are starting to see capitalism as a synonym for evil. I know this'll earn me a "no other system has helped so many people" rant, but even the biggest believers in capitalism have always said, "There is no bigger enemy to capitalism than unfettered capitalism." And while our capitalism may have a bit of the trappings of regulation, it's running pretty hard toward unfettered these days.
Too many for what purpose? Seems pretty clear that if we want a well-informed citizenry, we've got too few. I'd be perfectly happy to deal with a few undug ditches if it meant fewer of my fellow Americans had their heads up their asses.
We should have normal education at least getting us to literacy and decent critical thinking, yes, public education, but we don't. It shouldn't require payment plans to become a functional, literate adult in any society claiming to care about the citizens. History as something more than a nationalism screed, mathematics, reading/writing, and basic science should *NOT* require a college degree. I'm not saying that degrees won't help in all those fields, and I'd be all for it for more people, but right now it's a debt trap that more and more people don't want to take on just for the "Joy" of being able to acquire a job that'll fire you in a few years because, "AI can do everything." Not that that's necessarily going to happen, but I certainly wouldn't want to bet my future on it not happening if I were a kid right now.
Spending so much effort on blame-games without any attempt to change behavior is a bullshit game
You're making a lazy, bullshit assessment. We want to change behavior. In order to do that we have to hold accountable those who are responsible for the current behavior, because the changes will cost a lot and someone has to pay. Who better than those who deliberately engineered the situation?
When a junkie is dying in a ditch, do you blame the dealer or the junkie or both?
Changing *SHOULD* be the priority, but suing everybody in sight doesn't change anything. It just shuffles money around.
Give me all of your money! It won't change anything, it's just shuffling money around.
These oil companies also play the carbon credit game, so yeah. I don't see how enriching lawyers is going to fix anything. We're literally going to fine companies that our government is paying millions of dollars to to keep doing what they're doing. Maybe we turn that spigot off first before we decide there's only *one* segment of society to blame for what all of us have participated in?
>> so many of us are still depending on oil to survive and live?
What makes you think that's the case? Most oil gets burned into the atmosphere as transportation fuel, and that obviously can be replaced by electric vehicles.
I live in bumfuck SoDak. I depend on oil to survive. If someone wants to point me to the vehicle I can buy for under 10k today that is electric and will replace my gas guzzler, and actually fit my ape-sized body, great. I'd be all for it. Though I'm normally stuck buying used, and rarely have an extra big chunk of change to also buy a battery after buying a new car when the old one finally dies.
Not that I think oil companies are innocent snowflakes, but this is a society problem, and it's going to take society changing to fix it.
And oil companies are outside society, right?
Right?
Pointing fingers doesn't accomplish anything other than shuffling funds from one bank account to another
Yeah! Let's never figure out who is to blame, so we can never hold them accountable, and never change anything!
We're all to blame. We all know it's crap, and we're all trapped inside this bubble that forces us to use the crap that's killing us or drop out and live in a cabin in the woods. Spending so much effort on blame-games without any attempt to change behavior is a bullshit game that distracts from making progress toward solutions. Changing *SHOULD* be the priority, but suing everybody in sight doesn't change anything. It just shuffles money around. Which, I get, is priority number one in the age of Greed as God, but it's not actually changing things for the better.
We're so fixated on finding someone to blame that we're going to just keep doing the same shit until we literally make our only habitat unlivable for ourselves, while tossing around lawsuits trying to blame our suppliers for daring to give us what we all use. Not that I think oil companies are innocent snowflakes, but this is a society problem, and it's going to take society changing to fix it. Pointing fingers doesn't accomplish anything other than shuffling funds from one bank account to another, while lawyers soak up the fees in the transaction. How is that doing any good for anyone? Especially while so many of us are still depending on oil to survive and live?
The government belongs to the people. That we neglected our democracy is no excuse to blame anyone but ourselves for the current state of affairs.
Our government in the US belongs to money and greed. People haven't been involved since long before Citizens United, though that was definitely the death-knell of even putting up a pretense that our government belongs to us. We fuck around with a dog and pony show called "elections," but all the candidates are bought and paid for, or shortly will be if they climb to any position of actual power. There's a reason we're in this mess currently. And it's mostly because Greed is God, with fancy trappings that makes him look suspiciously like the Christian God to certain political persuasions. A spoiled brat of a god that throws temper tantrums at the most minor of slights and is willing to kill all of humanity just to prove he's all powerful. Hmm. Sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?
There are many people who are incredibly dedicated to their jobs, even while working remotely. I truly feel for these people and hope that they are identified and given exceptions where appropriate. But there are also clear work ethic issues associated with remote work. Just another one of those issues where a group of people trying to exploit the system end up ruining it for everyone. Fact is, there ARE a lot of people who love remote work *specifically because* they can practically ghost their job and always do the absolute minimum to not get fired. It's a lot easier to get away with this when you aren't in an office with other real people. Just like all of the kids who loved remote schooling during covid, because for all intents and purposes, it was like having a year (or more) off of school.
The thing I can't really wrap my head around with this shit is why the corporate world is so enamored with the idea that they need to enforce the same rules on *EVERYONE* when they have clear indicators that some individuals are flaunting the current arrangement. I know at my workplace we had a lot of remote work during the pandemic, and *EVERYONE* was recalled when two people were caught during logged-in hours posting their outings on Facebook. They had proof who was fucking it up, and proof that work was being done by those that were doing their work, yet the entire office had to be recalled because of the excesses of two. I know the argument was, "two that were visible," but it's not at all difficult to see who is doing work and who isn't for most jobs.
Frankly, I get more work done at home when I don't have coworkers stopping by my office every few minutes to discuss their puking kids, scratching cats, barking dogs, and whining mothers. Programming isn't a great job to break up that way, because being pulled out during a complicated bit of code means you have to take a few minutes to remind yourself where you were when you get back to it. And god forbid you close your door when in the office to concentrate. Then you're "antisocial and unavailable to the management."
And the end result was "confusing questions" (straight from the summary) which was partially the reason the entire test (along with login issues and screen lag) was called into question.
Thanks for the gentleness of your rebuke. I was in a hurry to get on my high horse and didn't carefully read TFS - my bad.
I'm a bit surprised that they're already using second, and even third, AIs for anything important. Racing to make a version of "broken telephone" part of any system or process whose results you actually care about is utter madness.
Surely, if they just filter the results through enough "hallucinating" AI chatbots, the results'll be perfect!
The ACS questions were developed with the assistance of AI and subsequently reviewed by content validation panels and a subject matter expert in advance of the exam...
Because of the subsequent review by qualified humans, I don't see this as a problem. But the scenario described in TFS is just begging for a 'slippery slope' argument.
I think it's inevitable that in the future, one AI will be tasked with checking the work of another AI. Then, in a storm of stupidity, the policy will become having the AI check its own homework.
After that, of course, the practice will devolve into just trusting the initial AI output, with no verification step. Welcome to the AI apocalypse!
My concern in this particular instance is that the company using the AI was also in charge of reviewing the questions generated by AI. And the end result was "confusing questions" (straight from the summary) which was partially the reason the entire test (along with login issues and screen lag) was called into question. I'm thinking there's bigger systemic issues here than just having AI involved in the process, but having AI involved in the process clearly wasn't helping anything.
Though I know what you're saying is already becoming a common practice for non-legal matters. Having one AI assess another AI's output, and sometimes throwing another in as a final check, is already being pushed as a way to overcome what are referred ot as the "inadequacies of current generation AI." The problem is, you have a garbage in, garbage out situation, where if AI #1 produces readable dreck, and AI #2 is set to correct grammar, and AI #3 is set to review content, who's to say you haven't fed so much bullshit from AI #1 through the whole process that AI #3 starts to view the bullshit as more valid than actual facts? Or maybe that's how they become more human. "My bullshit is just as valid as your facts," is, after all, the new norm.
The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
