This. Satire would be writing the article in the voice of the most vapid executive saying they need to abandon fundamentals and turn exclusively to AI.

However, that would be indistinguishable from our current reality, which would make it poor satire.

The issue with “Human jobs will be replaced” is that society still requires humans to have a paying job to survive.

I would love a world where nobody had to do dumb labour anymore, and everyone’s needs are still met.

Yeah, the issue is that already-rich business owners own all the automation and are scooping the profits of the increased productivity.

What part of “we paid these guys and they said we’re fine” do you not? Why would they choose and pay and release the results from a company they didn’t trust to clear them?

I’m not saying it’s rotten, but the fact that the third party was unilaterally chosen by and paid for LMG makes all the results pretty questionable.

It’s hard to trust a firm that is explicitly being paid by the company they’re investigating. I could be convinced that they are actually a neutral third party and that their investigation was unbiased if they had a track record of finding fault with their clients a significant portion of the time. (I haven’t done the research to see if that’s the case.)

However, you have to ask yourself - how many companies would choose to hire a firm which has that track record? Wouldn’t you pick one more likely to side with you?

The way to restore credibility is to have an actually independent third party investigation. Firm chosen by the accuser, perhaps. Or maybe something like binding arbitration. Even better, a union that can fight for the employees on somewhat even footing with the company.

I would check whether that’s actually legal in your area, if I were you.

This guy gets it. Thanks for the excellent post.

The fundamental difference is that the AI doesn’t know anything. It isn’t capable of understanding, it doesn’t learn in the same sense that humans learn. A LLM is a (complex!) digital machine that guesses the next most likely word based on essentially statistics, nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn’t know what it’s saying, nor does it understand the subject matter, or what a human is, or what a hallucination is or why it has them. They are fundamentally incapable of even perceiving the problem, because they do not perceive anything aside from text in and text out.

It’s more like, “I own 17 homes and it wasn’t that hard to get that many. They must not be trying hard enough.”

I see you’re one of the 2/3 of women who haven’t been sexually assaulted by a man. That’s good, I’m glad for you. But, as a man and in view of those statistics, I have to say it’s entirely justified for most women to prefer the bear.

If an LLM had to say “I don’t know” when it doesn’t know, that’s all it would be allowed to say! They literally don’t know anything. They don’t even know what knowing means. They are complex (and impressive, admittedly) text generators.

I kind of disagree with you, in that when I think about the standalone meanings of the words in each phrase, I think they do say the same thing.

The meaning of the words “You are welcome [to the help I gave you]” implies, to me, that there wasn’t actually anything to offer thanks over. You’re acknowledging their thanks, but telling them that they are welcome to take/use whatever it is you’re talking about. [EDIT: normally when someone tells me I’m welcome to something, I feel less compelled to ask and thank in the future. “You’re welcome to anything in the fridge”, for example.]

It does not imply, to me, that I would appreciate them returning the favour. That might be implied meaning in the phrase, but it’s definitely not what those words mean by themselves.

In any case, “You’re welcome”, “no problem”, “no worries”, etc… are all idioms that mean something different than what their individual words mean. The phrases as a whole carry a different meaning than the words themselves suggest.

Yes, with two hoses they are measuring count, speed, and vehicle weight. Not enforceable, as many others have said - nobody will be getting a speeding ticket from this. It’s just data collection.

Note: force measured on the hoses is a function of vehicle weight and speed. If you only have one hose, you can’t tell the difference between a light vehicle moving fast and a heavy vehicle moving slow. With 2 hoses you can now measure speed, which you can then use along with the pneumatic force to figure out weight.

It does not. Circumference only tells you speed if you’re measuring tire rotations, which this is not.

Do you think every paper writer would comply? Do you think that the actually problematic writers, like those cutting so many corners that they directly paste ChatGPT results into their paper, would comply?

I like that you pointed out industrial equipment. Those evaluations are usually pretty intense, and that’s within a very controlled environment.

Rule #1 of automation in my experience is: limit the scope of what you’re automating. Control as many variables as you can, make the requirements very specific. Every feature or situation or capability you add increases the difficulty exponentially.

Self-driving vehicles on the open road in the real world is an inherently unbound problem. The scope is nearly limitless. Good luck.

Best I can find in Canada is in BC. I think you could get longer distances in a few other provinces, but the issue is a lack of roads/destinations in the northern corners, haha.

Not sure about protect, but definitely non-aggression.

I imagine part of the problem is women seeing the start of menopause and thinking that means they’re no longer fertile. It’s a process, not an off switch.