I don't care much about Siri, and not a lot about Apple (other than as an investment), but Apple is generally really good about putting out polished tech, and so I'm curious if Siri AI will be up to their usual standards, because if so, it represents a significant usage of AI that has solved hallucination issues.
With the amount of people that have iphones in this world, I am more than sure that somebody will be able to make it do something wrong.
Apple knows this which is why it is taking years to test and iron out the kinks. But somebody somewhere will make it hack a social media account, or give over somebody elses credentials, or generate illegal child images etc.
The big if is does it work on device without phoning home? For example, Google or Meta as a Ad/data collection company wants to phone home for everything because they want to collect data on you, what will this Apple solution do?
> which is an extremely rationale judgement to make.
So it's "rational" to take bias into reading? Why even read? If you know what you think and refuse to accept new information then what purpose is there in consuming anything?
You should just read the comments and get a warm fuzzy that the crowd, for the time being, agrees with your intentionally static ideology.
Comments like these obviously hope they can sway the crowd before they can take an unbiased reading of the article. If the author is that wrong then the crowd here should be able to discover that on their own. If the author convinces the crowd then I'd think you'd want to present a better argument than "well, he was wrong _before_." Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, in action.
That's the exact opposite of rational. It is, in fact, a formal logical fallacy (ad hominem). His argument can be correct even if he himself is not typically correct.
On the surface, that's quite fair. However, there's one problem: it is much easier to make statements than to verify them, and that asymmetry is part of why the internet has been slowly eroding society.
It's useful/necessary to use past writing/arguments from an author to say whether they should actually receive any further critical evaluation, or be dismissed. We shouldn't say definitively "they're always wrong, so they're wrong now". However, it's reasonable to say: the author has a demonstrated lack of credibility, so we can probably assume they're wrong here, particularly if they have been wrong in this domain so many times before. Or if they happen to be correct, it's probably not strongly demonstrated by their work.
What's the point of reading someone's writings on a subject where you know they're not typically correct? How would we know what we 'learn' from Ed is right?
Having lived through all of that as a professional dev, AI is completely different. There was no career anxiety of any significance for OOP or Code Gen (certainly no code gen) or TDD or Agile - there was annoyance at it by some, sure, but not the existential angst the industry is currently experiencing.
I don't know, maybe there's just too many juniors on social media posing as senors spreading existential angst? I mean if GC was introduced in a time where there was an engagement AI spreading dread far and wide then I suspect we could have had the same thing.
I certainly wish people would be less sad, but I'm not sure that means that things are meaningfully different on a technical level.
Many people's understanding of "Google's hiring processes" is from a few articles over a decade ago. They had done numerous studies, switched things up, and now have a pretty solid approach to interviewing. This is one of the articles that was going around back then, and most of the conclusions are how Google still interviews: https://www.workforce.com/news/laszlo-bock-just-google-him
I work with many ex-Googlers that did a lot of interviewing and they process has been pretty consistent for many years now, and seen largely successful.
Choice and competition greatly alleviate that in other markets. With the medical system in the US, you often don't have much of a choice as switching doctors can be tough, and even if you can find one accepting patients, they are all controlled by the same administration and effectively collude to maximize their profits.
I live in the midwest and there never has been a time where any lawn I owned, nor was owned by anyone that I know, needed mowing 3x a week. You might like to do it to keep a perfectly manicured lawn, but it definitely isn't needed.
How much rainfall you get in the summer months? That is probably why. I do not kid with the 3x a week. If you don't keep up the grass gets too long and chokes the mower.
What's the difference between someone that wants to transfer their tickets from someone the know versus a scalper? Trust.
So when you buy a ticket you put, say, $1000, in escrow. The tickets have your name and ID on them. You can transfer the ticket to someone else. However, after the concert, the $1000 gets returned to the final person named on the ticket.
If the transfer is between trustworthy people, then the final ticket holder will give the money back to the original person.
There is no incentive to transfer money to the scalper, however. (Especially if scalping is illegal).
This doesn't eliminate scalping, but it significantly reduces it.
The problem is that it requires not only that the ticketed people (scalpers, show-goers) do something new to prevent scalping, but also that the ticketing people (ticketmaster, etc.) do something new to prevent scalping.
We need a solution that demands only the former, not the latter, because the ticketing people have no incentive to eliminate scalping. It's good for them.
It gets a little confusing because situations like TFA make it seem like the ticketers want to help, and while they might be interested in the goodwill of ensuring that some of the tickets sold go to known actual fans first, they definitely aren't interested in losing the "collect a fee multiple times" aspect of maximizing resale which includes zero-trust transactions.
Just contemplate what the radiator array and solar array needed a 1GW datacenter and all the cooling equipment and coolant, and imagine the harsh environment in space degrading it constantly.
The only point of the space-based datacenter idea is to pump the Spacex IPO
Sports are much more likely to result in injury, and as you get old, staying in the game (of life) is more important. It can take a long time to recover, if ever, from an injury as you age. I loved playing soccer, and did so until I was almost 50, but many of my issues, physically speaking, are from soccer. I loved doing it, and it is far more fun than strength training, but too many injuries result.
Strength training and controlled cardio is much better for continuous health.
But that's a big If!
reply