mountainriver

joined 1 year ago
[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 11 points 1 day ago (4 children)

One author (Daniel) correctly predicted chain-of-thought reasoning, inference scaling, and sweeping chip export controls one year BEFORE ChatGPT existed

Ah, this reminds me of an old book I came across years ago. Printed around 1920 it spent the first half with examples of how the future has been foretold correctly many, many times across history. The author had also made several correct foretellings, among them the Great War. Apparently he tried to warn the Kaiser.

The second half was his visions of the future including a great war...

Unfortunately it was France and Russia invading the Nordic countries in the 1930ies. The Franco-Russian alliance almost got beat thanks to new electric weapons, but then God himself intervened and brought the defenders low because the people had been sining and turning away from Christianity.

An early clue to the author being a bit particular was when he argued that he got his ability to predict the future because he was one quarter Sami, but could still be trusted because he was "3/4 solid Nordic stock". Best combo apparently and a totally normal way to describe yourself.

It's easy to read it as first and fourth "world" but it's actually first and fourth "word". But the first and fourth word of what? Mein Kampf? The 18 words?

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sharing the suffering multiples the suffering.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 14 points 2 days ago

I usually go with "Scientology for the 21st century". That for most gives just "weird cult", which is close enough for most people.

For those that are into weird cults you get questions about Xenu and such, and can answer "No they are not into Xenu, instead they want to build their god. Out of chatbots". And so on. If they are interested in weird cult shit, and have already accepted that we are talking about weird cults the weirdness isn't a problem. If not, it stops at "Scientology for the 21st century".

 

Capgemini has polled executives, customer service workers and consumers (but mostly executives) and found out that customer service sucks, and working in customer service sucks even more. Customers apparently want prompt solutions to problems. Customer service personnel feels that they are put in a position to upsell customers. For some reason this makes both sides unhappy.

Solution? Chatbots!

There is some nice rhetorical footwork going on in the report, so it was presumably written by a human. By conflating chatbots and live chat (you know, with someone actually alive) and never once asking whether the chatbots can actually solve the problems with customer service, they come to the conclusion that chatbots must be the answer. After all, lots of the surveyed executives think they will be the answer. And when have executives ever been wrong?

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Who in specific do you see voting for the next Dem who did not vote for Kamala?

Some of the 19 million 2020 Biden voters who didn't vote in 2024? Maybe some of the 5-6 million they lost one the issue of aiding and arming a genocide in Gaza?

No, going more Nazi must be the way. Much wise, much centrist. Much exhausting.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 1 week ago

The investors read "11x, the company's, revenue is 10 million" but what they missed was that the correct reading was "11 x [the company's revenue] is 10 million", so the actual revenue is less than a million. Easy mistake to make! Better luck next time investors!

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 7 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, the exclusion of the dismal science got a chuckle out of me.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 3 points 2 weeks ago

Ok, that makes sense.

I was somehow under the impression that the main wild cat money to real money exchange was to USD, on account of the media about such exchanges. The rest followed.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Something I have been pondering is why when going after Bitcoin from crimes (ransom or stolen) they don't just declare the individual "coins" stemming from illegal proceedings and that when they show up the "coins" will be confiscated and the holders investigated for money laundering. They have a serial number of sorts, right?

It should decrease the trade value of the "coins", might even have the added benefit of scaring people of from the scam currencies. Ay, there might be the rub, for in this modern world of ours suppressing financial "innovations" is treated as worse than scams.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I believe I read somewhere that Wikimedia was some time ago (a decade ago? who knows and no point in trying to search for the article) exploring the idea of a human curated search engine. Perhaps an idea who's time has come.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 5 points 3 weeks ago

Chatbots are coming for the traditional jobs of gurus, astrologers and tarot-readers.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They removed the citation, but did they keep the definition?

 

This isn't a sneer, more of a meta take. Written because I sit in a waiting room and is a bit bored, so I'm writing from memory, no exact quotes will be had.

A recent thread mentioning "No Logo" in combination with a comment in one of the mega-threads that pleaded for us to be more positive about AI got me thinking. I think that in our late stage capitalism it's the consumer's duty to be relentlessly negative, until proven otherwise.

"No Logo" contained a history of capitalism and how we got from a goods based industrial capitalism to a brand based one. I would argue that "No Logo" was written in the end of a longer period that contained both of these, the period of profit driven capital allocation. Profit, as everyone remembers from basic marxism, is the surplus value the capitalist acquire through paying less for labour and resources then the goods (or services, but Marx focused on goods) are sold for. Profits build capital, allowing the capitalist to accrue more and more capital and power.

Even in Marx times, it was not only profits that built capital, but new capital could be had from banks, jump-starting the business in exchange for future profits. Thus capital was still allocated in the 1990s when "No Logo" was written, even if the profits had shifted from the good to the brand. In this model, one could argue about ethical consumption, but that is no longer the world we live in, so I am just gonna leave it there.

In the 1990s there was also a tech bubble were capital allocation was following a different logic. The bubble logic is that capital formation is founded on hype, were capital is allocated to increase hype in hopes of selling to a bigger fool before it all collapses. The bigger the bubble grows, the more institutions are dragged in (by the greed and FOMO of their managers), like banks and pension funds. The bigger the bubble, the more it distorts the surrounding businesses and legislation. Notice how now that the crypto bubble has burst, the obvious crimes of the perpetrators can be prosecuted.

In short, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the damage.

If in a profit driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations profit, in the hype driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations hype. To point and laugh is damage minimisation.

view more: next ›