They’ve turned cruelty into a product.
Spite into a subscription service.
Hatred into a growth hack.
And business is booming.
Professional wrestling has a term for it: heel heat. It's when a performer does whatever it takes to make the audience hate them. They'll mock the local sports team. Insult the crowd. Break the rules when the referee isn't looking. The better they are at being despised, the more valuable
JFC, people in tech are really out there saying that language models will be better at therapy, financial advice, and career advice than trained people.
WTF is wrong with you people? Do you really have no clue about what other people’s jobs actually involve?
Language models can’t even do maths how are they supposed to get good at financial advice?
And therapy? Just… 😑
What’s wrong with people in tech?
I follow these people because their advice on software and web dev is usually sound, but wow, so many people in tech are off-the-rails and into the weeds in their arrogant and utter disregard for the expertise required for any of the fields they are regard as “soft”, “humane”, or (unsurprisingly) feminine.
Much of the talk surrounding “AI” easily replacing all of these jobs is just pure mask-off inhumane.
#AI #Automation #Philosophy #FreeWill: "Experiments show that people tend to confirm decisions made by machines, even against their better judgment.
We’ve all seen the GIF of the tourists who have driven into the middle of a lake because their GPS system told them to. We humans are ultimately herd creatures. We are rather lazy and prefer to follow orders – even those of a machine. A doctor who has to make a lot of decisions quickly under great pressure would probably welcome a machine to help her decide what to do. But the world isn’t built like that – there isn’t always a right answer as to which patient should get the precious kidney. In the most interesting cases in human life, the options are «en par.» That’s why AI systems should ask for an active decision in hard cases."
https://www.nzz.ch/english/oxford-philosopher-says-ai-cant-make-our-hard-choices-ld.1814334
Bryan Frances and Jonathan Matheson have revised their excellent introduction to the epistemology of disagreement, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/
“Their research shows that a #nonlinear approach drawing from #anthropology, #sociology, #philosophy, and #psychology, is better at getting to the moment of clarity, ending with a “Now I see it,” a conclusion that’s hard to arrive to on a path paved with #spreadsheets .”
How disappointing it is to learn that the best ideas rarely come from data after 15 years of working in the field. Data may give you a conclusive answer that changing the color of a button from yellow to green increases the conversion rate by 0.15ppts but will tell you nothing about the other ideas that would have had ten times more impact.
#Politicians have a skewed understanding of the effects of #offshorewind installations because the more positive studies are often behind paywalls & under-appreciated while the 'grey literature' which is more widely available is also often more negative.
This interesting research into the availability of research & how this effects conclusions about policy direction, has much wider implications for #governance than just the #green energy sector.
worth a read
The following text is based on the lecture “Language(s) of Philosophy – Philosophy and Language” held by Professor Rolf Elberfeld, University of Hildesheim, as part of the lecture course “Histories of Philosophy from a Global Perspective”, on November 13, 2023.
JA Westenberg
Baldur Bjarnason
Miguel Afonso Caetano
Lupposofi
Coach Pāṇini ®
Emeritus Prof Christopher May