Bei meiner letzten Wohnung schon. War aber auch ne weite, bequeme Straße, da kannst ja kaum erwarten, dass sich die teuren Autos an das Limit halten...
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 1169
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 1169
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
I'd love to see a bunch of places in the US...
...provided her people get their heads out of their asses and turn that country around to the point I reasonably feel safe going there.
So? A self-destructive taste isn't sane.
I wouldn't have recognised the guy, nor the context, nor did I know about the heisy or the damaged jewels. This is just a lot of interesting context without which the joke wouldn't have made any sense.
In such cases, explaining the joke actually makes it funnier. Thanks!
I can't say I agree with you historically, but you have a point. Bear with me here.
In pre-industrial societies, the two ways to sustain more people were either to use the land more efficiently (agriculture in fertile areas, pastorage in marginal lands) or to have more land. Agriculture can only sustain so many people without modern tools, specialised crops, irrigation technology and so on. At some point, you reach the maximum of how many people the land can feed.
With a slowly growing population, that leaves you with a problem: more mouths to feed than food. Imagine you're a young adult facing the fact that your father's farm just can't sustain both your family and your siblings'. You have the option to a) never have a family (= stay celibate because the contraception methods of the time weren't quite as reliable as those today), b) fight your siblings over that farm or c) fight other people over their land.
Since a) most people like to bone and wanted to have a family, b) most people loved their family and didn't wanna kill them or leave them to starvation, that really only leaves one option: war against other communities. Hey, it ain't pretty, but better them than me, right?
Early war won't have looked like the organised armies that emerged later, but more in the form of raids and ambushes, trying to make an area too dangerous for the others to live or cultivate. Later wars would have been more active efforts to expel or enslave the residents. Either you succeed in winning new land, or you got rid of your overpopulation. It would be quite macabre to call it a solution, but in any case, war served survival.
Obviously, it's nice to have more than just "barely enough". There is some prestige and respectability that comes with being a generous host, throwing feasts and sharing what you have with others, but you'll need to have it in the first place. So even beyond survival, war becomes a means for prosperity.
With that in mind, it's not hard to guess what people would expect from an effective leader: to secure their survival at least and ideally bring some prosperity too. From that, a form of military aristocracy arises, people whose authority derives from their ability to protect their community and lead them to prosperity.
That effect eventually gets out of hand as those aristocrats exploit their own people, but the general expectation of "good leader = good at war" remained, particularly within the hierarchy of these aristocrats. Where religion meets kingship, there is also an element of divine provenance: a good king has the gods' favour (or, in the European middle ages, God's favour). At this point, kings struggling to build legitimacy (perhaps because poor harvest pulls into question, whether they really have God's favour) like to do war, both to demonstrate their military excellence and prove their divine favour, and to acquire land and riches to reward their nobles for loyal service and prove generous.
War, like many other activities, becomes a thing kings are expected to do, because all the good kings do it, and they're good kings because they did it well. It's somewhat circular, but essentially, war becomes a political performance (because the ones leading it generally don't do the dying...) and also still a means for survival and prosperity. Emotions provide the cause, but the driving mechanism isn't just wounded pride or anger.
Now, to circle back to my emphasis historically and specification of pre-industrial societies: at some point, new technologies provided new means to make land more fertile. Logistics made it possible to specialise on certain crops that would then be exported to other places while importing what wasn't grown locally. Machines made planting and harvesting faster. Fertilisers, pesticides, new breeds of crops all improved the yield of land. You'll be aware that there are tons of food being wasted: Modern, developed countries tend to have more land than they strictly need for survival.
So with the survival motivator being negligible, kings no longer needing to prove themselves, the factor that remains is prosperity, or more accurately, greed. Colonialism won't need more than two sentences in this respect. Early settlers may have just been looking for a place to live, but the allure of exotic goods didn't take long to draw nefarious attention. Trade could also obtain these things, but why bargain for what you could take by force?
And to make things worse, sometime in the 19th century, national sentiments began to crop up. Now we arrive at the point where pride and anger become a motivator. Suddenly, that plot of land isn't just a matter of prosperity, but of possessiveness. Technically, it doesn't matter much which government collects the taxes and which the import tariffs. Trade across the border would allow anyone to profit from it anyway, and generally, investing in the infrastructure of an area is more lucrative than war. But "I'll be dammed if I let that other flag wave over our land" does become a factor.
Particularly after the world wars, we should have understood how devastating industrialised warfare is, and how much you pay for so little gain. In fact, I posit that war has generally become downright irrational. Trade and infrastructure could achieve so much more.
But we're stuck with petty people and grand ambitions, driven not by survival, nor by desire for prosperity, nor by plausible greed: Today, more than ever, we fight over the pride, anger, jealousy, hate and other emotions that people couldn't cope with in a healthy way.
War was never pretty, but whatever fig leaf of justification one might come up with has been torn away by mortar shrapnel and burned to a crisp by nuclear devastation.
That's a "active hostile invasion on our soil makes organised civil processes impossible" thing, if anything. How the hell are the people in occupied territory gonna queue up to vote? How would you validate and count the ballots? How would the displaced refugees receive and submit their ballots?
The whole thing would be so ripe with opportunities for interference that you couldn't trust the results. Why hold it?
But also, Parliament votes every 90 days to confirm that martial law still applies, so it's not like President Zelenskyy is just doing so on his own whims.
Seen it for the first time today, so yeah, your comments don't reach everyone
- JumpLocked
Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's "Zionist Bar Problem"
Aside from the fact that following the law should be an understandable concession to wanting your instance to continue existing:
I don't think I've seen any Anti-Palestine sentiment there. I'm also pretty sure most of us are on the same page about Zionism. This dispute is about the way that we express it, which is being framed as defending it and compared to actively perpetrating genocide.
There is a significant difference between following laws about hatespeech and following orders to actually murder people. Erasing all nuance doesn't help the actual discourse about what we all agree is systematic genocide against the Palestinian people.
Die zwei Hauptwerkzeuge, die der Staat zur Regulierung der Wirtschaft hat, sind Steuern/Zölle und Subventionen. Dadurch kann er die wirtschaftlichen Interessen nutzen um bestimmtes Verhalten zu motivieren.
Das Problem besteht darin, dass Firmen das ggf. als Anlass nehmen, die Mehrkosten einfach an die Kunden weiterzugeben, während sie die Subventionen einstreichen, mit dem Effekt den du beschreibst. Dem sollte eigentlich das Konkurrenzprinzip gegenhalten, da dann eben der eine Konkurrent die Subvention nutzen kann um billiger anzubieten, dabei aber trotzdem Profit zu machen.
Das funktioniert aber nur, wenn es echte Konkurrenz gibt. Wenn ein paar Großkonzerne zum einen den Markt dominieren, zum anderen dann aber völlig ohne Absprache beschließen jeweils den Preis passend zur Steuer anzuheben, ist das kein Kartell sondern reines Selbstinteresse.
Deshalb sind Großkonzerne Gift für eine freie Wirtschaft, primär zulasten der ärmeren Leute. Um dem entgegenzuwirken helfen auch keine Subventionen oder Steuern. Da müsste das dritte Werkzeug ans Werk: Gesetze und Vorschriften, bewusst zugunsten der Verbraucher und insbesondere armen Bevölkerung formuliert, mit Nachdruck durchgesetzt inklusive persönlicher Haftung von Entscheidungsträgern für fahrlässige oder vorsätzliche Verletzungen.
Sprich:
Es wäre daher höchstwahrscheinlich sinnvoller, einfach bestimmte Maximalzuckermengen gesetzlich vorzuschreiben und Rauchen einfach für alle zu verbieten.
Ich finde MSlop Teams nicht prinzipiell schlecht zu bedienen (aber das mag auch Gewohnheit sein). Insbesondere finde ich das Telefonieren damit viel besser verständlich als klassisches Telefon (aber mal ehrlich, gefühlt ist jede VoIP Lösung besser als klassisches Telefon).
Die Abhängigkeit ist eher das Problem, aber den Schwanz hat mein Arbeitnehmer (danke, Känguru, nimm ne Schnapspraline) eh so tief geschluckt dass wir so bald nicht wegkommen. Meine ganze Arbeit der letzten Jahre könnte ich einstampfen und auf anderer Plattform neu aufbauen (wäre vielleicht nicht ganz falsch, wenn die neue Plattform weniger oder zumindest mal andere Probleme hat).
Ich hab eins für Teams et al. bekommen, mit dem expliziten Hinweis ich dürfe das Arbeitsprofil gerne außerhalb der Arbeistzeiten ausschalten. Mein Chef hält sich da zwar selber nicht dran aber wenigstens macht er seine eigene (besser bezahlte) Verfügbarkeit nicht zur Erwartung für alle.
Aus-Thema: Ich bin so unglaublich traurig, dass diese Dinger Nestlé sind. Ich hab die geliebt, aber ich hab so eine Abscheu gegenüber Nestlé dass mir das nicht mehr runtergeht.
As the internet content used to train LLMs contains more and more (recent) LLM output, the output quality feeds back into the training and impacts further quality down the line, since the model itself can't judge quality.
Let's do some math. There's a proper term for this math and some proper formula, but I wanna show how we get there.
To simplify the stochastic complexity, suppose an LLM's input (training material) and output quality can be modeled as a ratio of garbage. We'll assume that each iteration retrains the whole model on the output of the previous one, just to speed up the feedback effect, and that the randomisation produces some constant rate of quality deviation for each part of the input, that is: some portion of the good input produces bad output, while some portion of the bad input randomly generates good output.
For some arbitrary starting point, let's define that the rate is equal for both parts of the input, that this rate is 5% and that the initial quality is 100%. We can change these variables later, but we gotta start somewhere.
The first iteration, fed with 100% good input will produce 5% bad output and 95% good.
The second iteration produces 0.25% good output from the bad part of the input and 4.75% bad output from the good input, adding up to a net quality loss of 4.5 percentage points, that is: 9.5% bad and 90.5% good.
The third iteration has a net quality change of -4.05pp (86.45% good), the fourth -3.645pp (82.805%) and you can see that, while the quality loss is slowing down, it's staying negative. More specifically, rhe rate of change for each step is 0.9 times the previous one, and a positive number times a negative one will stay negative.
The point at which the two would even out, under the assumption of equal deviation on both sides, is at 50% quality: both parts will produce the same total deviation and cancel out. It won't actually reach that equilibrium, since the rate of decay will slow down the closer it gets, but if "close enough" works for LLMs, it'll do for us here.
Changing the initial quality won't change this much: A starting quality of 80% would get us steps of -3pp, -2.7pp, -2.43pp, the pattern is the same. The rate of change also won't change the trend, just slow it down or accelerate it. The perfect LLM that would perfectly replicate its input would still just maintain the initial quality.
So the one thing we could change mathemstically is the balance of deviation somehow, like reviewing the bad output and improving it before feeding it back. What would that do?
It would shift the resulting quality. At a rate of 10% deviation for bad input vs 5% for good input, the first step would still be -5pp, but the second would be 10%×5% - 5%×95% -4.25pp instead of -4.5pp, and the equilibrium would be at 66% quality instead. Put simply, if g is the rate of change towards good and b the rate towards bad, the result is an average quality of g÷(g+b).
Of course, the assumptions we made initially don't entirely hold up to reality. For one, models probably aren't entirely retrained so the impact of sloppy feedback will be muted. Additionally, they're not just getting their output back, so the quality won't line up exactly. Rather, it'll be a mishmash of the output of other models and actual human content.
On one hand, that means that high-quality contributions by humans can compensate somewhat. On the other hand, you'd need a lot of high-quality human contributions to stem the tide of slop, and low-quality human content isn't helping. And I'm not sure the chance of accidentally getting something right despite poor training data is higher than that of missing some piece of semantic context humans don't understand and bullshitting up some nonsense. Finally, the more humans rely on AI, the less high-quality content they themselves will put out.
Essentially, the quality of GenAI content trained on the internet is probably going to ensloppify itself until it approaches some more or less stable level of shit. Human intervention can raise that level, advances in technology might shift things too, and maybe at some point, that level might approximate human quality.
That still won't make it smarter than humans, just faster. It won't make it more reliable for
randomly generating"researching" facts, just more efficient in producing mistakes. And the most tragic irony of all?The more people piss in the pool of training data, the more piss they'll feed their machines.
Wir hatten auch eine mit so einem Knatterscheißteil, das direkt unter unserem Fenster parkte und dann noch mit dem Alter zunehmen Schwierigkeiten mit Anspringen hatte. Das hat dann schon mal ein paar Minuten gedauert, bis es vom Ächzen und Husten in sein Betriebsgeknatter übergegangen ist. Morgens um sechs ist das für Studenten keine Freude.
Eines gesegneten Tages hat sie nach zehn Minuten des Fehlzündens endlich aufgegeben und der arme Karren durfte endlich in Frieden ruhen und wir konnten endlich den Tag ohne Hass und Kopfschmerzen anfangen.
Und dann hat sie mir am Tag drauf aufm Parkplatz bekundet, wie schade es doch sei, dass ihre gute alte Ape gestorben ist.