farleykr

Not a unique thought here, but the religious faith that people have in AI is so very clear in posts like this. Not just people with this level of zeal either. Everyone who talks positively about AI does it in the context of the amazing things what will someday - not now but someday in the future - be possible. Even the goals of AI are all aligned with what most religions proclaim as the end goal or result. You might as well just come out and ask people to believe that someday a savior is going to come and solve all our problems and if you submit to that savior then you too can be one of the chosen ones.

What are the aspects of working on a bus that make it impractical? When I find myself in your position usually I end up realizing I'm self-conscious about people seeing what I'm doing more than I'm concerned about any practical downside or benefit.

It is surely a sign of the times that this is in Teen Vogue.

Maybe if we spent more time learning how to interpret animal emotions than we do building AI to do it for us the title would read vice versa.

True, no argument there. What fascinates me more is why people continue to think we can teach a chatbot how to recognize what's true and give us answers that we can't find for ourselves. At best a chatbot is going to be a tool that enables us to gain insights we didn't have before the same way a dictionary can "teach" you words you didn't know before.

I think the idea of using technology to solve life's ultimate conundrums has long since jumped the shark and veered into the area of religious belief. People are literally putting their faith in AI even if they wouldn't use religious vocabulary to label and define it as such.

I mentioned this in one of my other comments but even if AI figures this out where humans can't, I think this will involve coming to the conclusion that there really is an objective, knowable truth at the core of the universe or at least a set of tools will be developed for better discerning what that truth is. Even if you're talking about knowing who someone's spouse is, I'm not convinced we can ever teach a machine how you know what is true unless we're willing to have some sort of basic tenet of what truth is or how to discern it.

Fair enough. I think a lot of people are going to end up blindly trusting AI because its right often enough. But for those who are interested in what it really means to know something, I wonder if this will push people back towards embracing the idea that there is fundamental, objective, knowable truth at the core of the universe even if we can't ever know that truth perfectly.

I might be getting overly philosophical here but I'd say it's because they truly don't know anything at all (as opposed to knowing some things but not others). To be able to say "I don't know" you have to first "know" on a deeper level that there is a fundamental true or correct answer to a question and that you are disconnected from it.

The Forgotten Employee would make a great addition:

https://sites.google.com/site/forgottenemployee/

Point taken. I wouldn't recommend avoiding anything modern across the board and neither does CS Lewis. And innovation is great but I would guard against assuming that innovation is always positive and a step in the right direction even if not directly. It's also true that many old texts, religious or otherwise, contain timeless wisdom that can inform innovative efforts. And I'm not talking about old by many centuries either. For example, I think many of the hacker types that frequent HN and seek to build something innovative would probably benefit from reading some of Alan Turing's writings. On the other end of the spectrum, maybe Sam Altman could benefit from studying the story of the tower of Babel.

I'm assuming you're exaggerating for effect at least a little but with that caveat I couldn't agree more. CS Lewis has a great argument for this in his introduction to Athanasius' On the Incarnation. Paraphrasing his argument: Time naturally filters out the nonsense and what we're left with are the books that are worth reading by virtue of the fact that they have stood the test of time. Truth or at least the closest we can get to it naturally bubbles up to the surface over time.

https://thecslewis-studygroup.org/the-c-s-lewis-study-group/...

I think pretty soon we will get to the point where there’s some sort of significant boundary at all levels between online and real life because the only way to be sure you’re seeing something real is to be interacting with it in real life. The internet will not be something you visit on a web browser to get information but will become a place you go where you will simply have to acknowledge that nothing is real. Obviously that’s a concern now but I wonder if we’ll get to a point where it’s taken for granted at large that whatever you see on the internet just isn’t real. And I wonder what implications that will have.

This is exactly what’s at stake. I heard an artist say one time that he’d rather listen to Bob Dylan miss a note than listen to a song that had all the imperfections engineered out of it.

Not a fan of discourse?

This has potential to be an amazing resource. Not sold on the infinite scroll that goes in any direction as a useful interface for browsing the images. As other commenters have noted, metadata such as source information would also be useful and should be included

I think they mean that the description of the episode should have a list of books (and maybe other resources) that were mentioned in the episode itself.

This phenomenon likely reflects that while initiatives to integrate women in traditionally masculine roles have gained momentum, the reverse movement remains relatively under developed.

Not challenging you. Maybe it’s just the phrasing. But that sentence to me reads as if they think the presence of the biases in GPT means that they exist in the real world. And again, not challenging that the biases do exist. Just noting the trend toward trusting GPT in increasingly subjective areas that have to do with moral judgement. To me it’s not too much different than drawing conclusions about the world from religious texts.

What’s interesting to me is that (if I understand correctly) they’re using GPT as a source of information to make this claim. Usually you see conclusions like these being drawn from some sort of sociological study. But here they’re just talking to GPT and using its answers to determine things about the real world.

Not disputing the claims. But talking to GPT to get answers about the real world that have to do with value judgements is just weird. There’s a big difference between asking GPT to give you a recipe for a cake and asking GPT to help you understand the value the world places on different people.

What is the ‘delves’ style?

You're not wrong.

I'm taking issue with the fact that he's presenting Google and its mission as something objective and above reproach. By doing so he's going above and beyond asking people to align themselves with Google's mission and methods and asking them to assent to something that he seems to take for granted as transcendent.

It's religious language and behavior and it creeps me out.

I'm not taking issue with him expecting employees to get in line with the mission and methods. I'm saying he should be more frank and transparent about the fact that this is what he's doing instead of acting like Google as an entity is objective and impartial.

We have a duty to be an objective and trusted provider of information that serves all of our users globally. When we come to work, our goal is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. That supersedes everything else and I expect us to act with a focus that reflects that.

Sometimes I really wonder if there is a total lack of self awareness or if these things are phrased in obligatory ways because of legal concerns.

Maybe the nature of working for a company is that you need to align yourself with the company's mission and methods. But I can't see how objectivity is really in play here. Surely Sundar Pichal can see that he's just putting his own truth claims over those of the employees?

Why not just say that Google has a certain mission and methods and that if you're going to work at Google you need to get on board instead of phrasing in a way that makes it seem like Google is completely neutral or above reproach as an entity because of their alleged stature as objective and trusted?

So… does anyone have any recommendations for some good emulators that we could reasonably expect to see on the app store?

Just out of curiosity: does anyone know why so many of the sponsors listed on bulma.io are casinos and betting sites?

What are the chances that TikTok really gets comprehensively banned in the US? This seems like the kind of thing that would get stuck in a Bermuda triangle of litigation while nothing ever happens.

I was going to mention the same issue. Not sure how the site decides which is the correct answer, especially considering both possible answers were available in the autocomplete selections.

Yeah, maybe my suggestion could've been better stated. I'm not suggesting that you can ignore documentation and other forms of writing that explore paradigms and methodologies. I meant there's only so much you can read before actually writing CSS and practicing making layouts becomes a necessary part of learning CSS in depth.

And, to play devil's advocate a little: You can't make up a rule that doesn't exist. Either your CSS will work or it won't. And if it works it's not wrong.

I've found the best way is to build things over and over again. That may reflect a certain learning style but actually manipulating styles and layouts really helps hammer home the practical aspects of how it works.

I also approach writing CSS with the goal of writing as little as possible. Not because I don't like it - I tend to think it gets an unfairly bad rap - but because it teaches you how to more effectively style layouts without layering too many declarations.

Seems useful at a first glance but after doing some reading it looks like a lot of the list is proprietary technologies, platforms, and companies rather than helpful definitions

I've noticed that high-performing people often develop idiosyncrasies that shape how they do what they do. I wouldn't use McCarthy's rules about semicolons as a general rule for any writer except maybe as an exercise. Constraints breed creativity. I think the number of successful writers who do use semicolons validates their usefulness. But I would also argue that somehow McCarthy figured out that ditching them was part of what allowed him to write as well as he did.