It's very telling that you think emotion has anything to do with it.
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 3669
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 10
- Comments
- 3669
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
That's what makes them shitty though.
When I have a hard technical problem I often search for and read through a dozen different sources. Many of them are wrong, or are right but not covering exactly the situation I'm looking at. Eventually I'll find one that's either right and answers my problem, or gives me the clue I need so I can figure out the solution for myself.
If I ask an LLM to solve the problem, it will make up an answer that would seamlessly blend in with all its training data. In other words, it's most likely to produce something that's wrong, or something that's right but not for my particular case, or something that's close but incomplete. That's effectively useless. At worst it blends in with its training data enough to convince me it's right, while not actually being right. At best it's something that is close enough to give me the clue I need. Most of the time it's going to be something that's wrong and I know it's wrong because if it were that simple I wouldn't have had to resort to the AI bullshit generator.
I think it's a bit of both. Sometimes the people hiring them are truly clueless. The kinds of reports that management consultants make seem really well thought out and intelligent. Other times, upper management wants to make a big decision, and they think it's the right one, but they need something to show they considered all the alternatives and that an outside source agrees with them.
Also, management consultants are very stupid, but they're clever in a very narrow area. That's why they succeed with upper management, because like LLMs, upper managers think they're clever.
How does AI fuel billionaires?
If your army can easily crush the enemy and they refuse to give you the resources you want, it's not an emotional decision to go to war to get it. It might be an immoral one, but so is demanding the resources in the first place.
But, many anonymous tips are baseless. That's why there normally isn't a press conference when those allegations haven't yet been investigated and verified.
It was something he mentioned in passing. But, the focus of his press conference was the same as the headline here: "There are allegations"
I'm a huge fan of immutable distros, but I'm not sure they're mass transit.
Maybe:
It gets you where you want to go, but you don't have to handle the toil of dealing with traffic.
I don't think that the files are weakened by allegations from anonymous tips. But, if that's the pillar they're using to build their case against Trump, that's pretty worrisome. Holding a press conference about allegations from an anonymous tip line is the equivalent of an attack ad with ominous music and vague, unprovable statements.
If that's what they're going to lead with, they better at least take the angle "and it's very telling that nobody followed up on these incredibly disturbing claims. Why weren't they investigated?"
It would be a lot more meaningful if it were "credible allegations" or "credible evidence" or "substantiated reports". An allegation is just a claim. Some of the stuff in the Epstein files is just calls that were made to a tip line, without any follow-up investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if a high-profile tip line also has allegations that Trump is a lizard person, or that Epstein had psychic powers.
It's not that I doubt that Trump did it, it's just that a mere allegation is nothing. If all they have is allegations, then the case against him is a lot weaker than it actually seems. If these claims were actually investigated, not just written down, they should say that. Even if the claims weren't investigated and it's because the FBI was ordered not to investigate, say that. Surely among the 3.5 million pages they've released, there's more than just allegations. Otherwise it seems like they're trying to pull a fast one, making it seem like a mere allegation is a sign of guilt.
Under a free market, a painter buys paint, an easel and some canvas at prices set by supply and demand, and then paints and sells portraits again at a price set by supply and demand.
That's capitalism, my dude:
- Private ownership of the means of production: the worker owns the paint, easel and canvas
- Used for obtaining a profit: the worker uses the capital to transform inputs (the blank canvas) to outputs (painted canvas) which they sell at a markup to generate profit.
What you're describing as capitalism is also capitalism, but it adds unnecessary steps. Capitalism isn't about selling shares in companies, although that can happen under capitalism (it also happens under mercantilism). It's not about loans (but of course they can happen under capitalism, just like under any other economic system).
Your misunderstanding of capitalism is why people hate capitalism. They think it's about the rich getting richer. But capitalism is merely about private ownership of the means of production, and selling the results using that capital for a profit. That's it.
In the middle ages you could buy art supplies and do art, but if you wanted to sell your art, you needed to be in the right guild. For example, if you lived in London you couldn't sell playing cards unless you were a member of the Worshipful Company of Makers of Playing Cards. And, whether or not you made a profit wasn't a matter for the free market, rates were determined by the guild. The guild determined who could own the means of production for the arts they controlled, and the guild determined prices.
Similarly, under communism, there was no private ownership of the means of production, so there was no selling things for profit after making them. Everything belonged to the state. Until the 1960s in the USSR there was an exception for small production cooperatives owned by groups of artists. But, those were liquidated and transferred to the state because they really weren't in line with communism.
If you want to be able to sell things on the free market, and to buy and own the tools you use to make those things, then you want capitalism. If you don't want wealth concentration, then you still want capitalism, you just want it to be regulated in the way that the early thinkers like Adam Smith thought capitalism should be regulated.
Because part of conservatism is the idea that hierarchies based on who your parents are, and the fact that you're male, etc. are proper and right.
They want to submit to the people who are correctly above them in the hierarchy, and want the people who are supposed to be below them in the hierarchy to submit to them.
It's really amazing to me that we're about to hit the 250th anniversary of the founding of the USA, and this is basically advocating going back to how votes worked worked way back when the country was founded.
Yeah. Wars weren't fought because a king had a temper tantrum. Wars were mostly fought to control land.
This is mistaking cause and effect. Fighting over land results in a lot of strong emotions. Emotions aren't the cause of fighting over land.
Capatilism is only possible when you steal value from someone or somewhere else.
I don't know about "Capatalism" but "Capitalism" doesn't require stealing value. All capitalism requires is private ownership of the means of production and using it to generate profit. If you're a painter and buy paint, an easel and some canvas, and use that to sell portraits, you're doing capitalism.
Most zoomers are anti-capitalist because they don't actually know what capitalism is, and can't really picture what it would actually be like in a different kind of economic system. Anybody who grew up after 1989 hasn't actually seen a world where any other economic system exists. Capitalism was an attempt to improve a world dominated by monopolies, with big tariffs and trade barriers, where workers had no freedom to change jobs and had to fight over the scraps left over from the wealthy. If that sounds like the current world, it's because we're backsliding from capitalism back towards mercantilism and feudalism. Not because capitalism sucks.
Windows:
That's all of them, isn't it? For all other tariffs he would have had to use the legislative branch, which he didn't.
Why is that relevant? AI is a massive money loser.