• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 29th, 2023

help-circle
  • here’s someone that’s never worked for small companies before… having worked for both startups and enterprise IN MELBOURNE, you can have the enterprise salary or the startup flexibility… you don’t get to have both

    and to work for small companies takes a whole skill set of its own in a different kind of risk management that i don’t think anyone i’ve worked with in enterprise possesses to be quite honest

    he complains that a small company wants him to do twice the work at the same salary in 1/6th the time? yeah welcome to the job mate… you can do 20x the work at a small company but they don’t have money to burn… you sacrifice salary for job satisfaction - ie getting shit done and being proud of it

    don’t like it? follow the money, be stuck in enterprise and build the shit they want you to build at a slow pace because of the red tape… your salary is higher because it has to be to make up for the fact that it’s not fulfilling




  • it’s possible it was generated by multiple people. when i craft my prompts i have a big list of things that mean certain things and i essentially concatenate the 5 ways to say “present all dates in ISO8601” (a standard for presenting machine-readable date times)… it’s possible that it’s simply something like

    prompt = allow_bias_prompts + allow_free_thinking_prompts + allow_topics_prompts

    or something like that

    but you’re right it’s more likely that whoever wrote this is a dim as a pile of bricks and has no self awareness or ability for internal reflection




  • branding

    okay

    the marketing

    yup

    the plagiarism

    woah there! that’s where we disagree… your position is based on the fact that you believe that this is plagiarism - inherently negative

    perhaps its best not use loaded language. if we want to have a good faith discussion, it’s best to avoid emotive arguments and language that’s designed to evoke negativity simply by their use, rather than the argument being presented

    I happen to be in the intersection of working in the same field, an avid fan of classic Sci-Fi and a writer

    its understandable that it’s frustrating, but just because a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human doesn’t make it inherently wrong. it might be useful for you to reframe these developments - it’s not taking away from humans, it’s enabling humans… the less a human has to have skill to get what’s in their head into an expressive medium for someone to consume the better imo! art and creativity shouldn’t be about having an ability - the closer we get to pure expression the better imo!

    the less you have to worry about the technicalities of writing, the more you can focus on pure creativity

    The point is that the way these models have been trained is unethical. They used material they had no license to use and they’ve admitted that it couldn’t work as well as it does without stealing other people’s work

    i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

    so, why is it unethical for a machine but not a human to absorb information and create something based on its “experiences”?


  • “Soul” is the word we use for something we don’t scientifically understand yet

    that’s far from definitive. another definition is

    A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death

    but since we aren’t arguing semantics, it doesn’t really matter exactly, other than the fact that it’s important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesn’t make it the only truth

    of course i didn’t discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists i’m sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we don’t understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; that’s not in question, and you seem to be questioning it

    You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong

    it’s not abstracted; it’s simplified… if what you’re saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be “abstracted” so much it “becomes wrong”, which is categorically untrue… it’s an incomplete picture, but that doesn’t make it either wrong or abstract

    *edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didn’t state that, however most of this still applies regardless

    i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that it’s simply a belief, however it’s a belief that’s based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree that’s fine but don’t act like you have some “evidence” or “proof” to back up your claims… all we’re talking about here is belief, because we simply don’t know - neither you nor i

    and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)

    if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, that’s not a violation

    if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, you’re arguing that is a violation

    the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something “more” than a probabilistic model going on… but again, that’s far from certain