How is the existence of a PR/spin industry, the fact that many Americans live way beyond their means, or the proliferation of influencers whose job is to show a specific story not evidence of a society that values appearances and will do a lot to protect face?
> a society that values appearances and will do a lot to protect face
Read my comment again, carefully, and you'll understand that your response is unrelated to my point.
Also: all of these things exist in large, industrialized Eastern nations too. You've clearly never lived in any of those places or even had tangential exposure to their culture. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - just understand that you are exactly the kind of person who is going to have the hardest time understanding the cultural difference - which is part of my point.
There's no "in my estimation" - this is a well-researched topic and the vast majority of sociologists agree that there is a major cultural difference between the two, starting with the fact that "keeping up with the Joneses" is an individual act of pride vs "saving face" in China not only involves individual pride of an objectively greater magnitude, but also a collective pride that is rare in Western cultures and almost unheard of in highly individualistic cultures like the United States.
For understanding this better - you can try to read the Wikipedia page on the concept of face ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept) ), but part of my point is that academic/intellectual understanding is a really poor substitute for experience in this domain, and reading a page allows for intellectual disagreement that is literally inconsistent with reality - experience forces you to directly confront that reality.
I'd suggest watching a few hundred hours of media from several different Eastern cultures (I personally like a mix between Japanese, Korean, and Chinese television shows - they each have their own memetics and charm and can be highly enjoyable - but most forms of media should give you the same experience as long as it's diverse enough).
You clearly have both zero exposure to any sort of Eastern culture, and you also didn't read any of the sources in that Wikipedia page - and instead of doing either of those (because you know that if you do, you'll be proven wrong and/or have to content with cognitive dissonance), you're trying to catch me with a gotcha. It's clear you're not operating in good faith - any person genuinely trying to understand would do one of those things, and you're not.
> Maybe you’re picking and choosing media to reinforce your inner biases?
You think that I chose to watch thousands of hours of media, not for entertainment, but specifically to deluse myself into a very specific and niche bias that the vast majority of people don't even have a mental framework to conceptualize and never comes up in casual conversation or has any relevance to my daily life? Congratulations, that's one of the most insane accusations I've ever seen on the internet.
If it were all BS, how do you explain success stories like the Internet and the notion that countries on Dell’s supply chain won’t go to war with each other?
Fundamentally, economics is the belief that humans have self-interests and act on them.
Economics is obviously not 100% right - it’s not a physical science - but more often than not, you can see it in action.
Economics is closer to weather science - we can make certain inferences and predictions which can be wrong but the basic working theory is broadly correct, imho.
I think youre confusing a religious like belief in capitalism that posits that "greed is good" despite any contra indication with economics, which is a discipline where conjecture is taught as fact and empiricism if frowned upon.
I'm not even going to touch your examples. They are completely illogical? Dell? The Internet?? Thats one company, and a technology.
If you read the wealth of nations, the only real promise of capitalism is that competition lowers prices, and thats why its considered "good" not because it solves all problems. I believe that, the rest is ill-supported conjecture.
To point out the global stupidity that is economics, there is absolutely no consideration for the concept of a constraint. Constraints are a fundamental problem in optimization.
Nowhere did I say that economics = greed is good capitalism.
Economics is fundamentally a study of how human and human society processes self interest.
It tries to find broad patterns in how we process self interest and then supports or subverts those patterns. To build on your example, capitalism reinforces self-interest while communism tries to regulate self interest. Both are economic theories.
Two countries on Dell’s supply chain not wanting to fight against each other is an example of weighing self interest and deciding that participating in a global supply chain is worth more than fighting a war.
The internet was in large part made possible because of government funded multi-year research during the cold war. It was largely ruined through commercialization and privatization, on all its layers.
The demand for Internet was an economic event where the efficiencies it afforded - quick, low cost communication, scale etc - made it attractive.
Other countries had invented the Internet (France, I believe) but it went nowhere.
Other comms technologies have been invented - Iridium satellites e.g. - but they died. Even distributed Internet based systems like Ipfs have the technology but not the adoption.
Technology is a part of the story but the success and spread of the US backed Internet is an economic story.
That the Internet has balkanised into walled gardens is downstream problem of successful products getting shittified until someone steps in a creates an alternative.
1. AI weights managers - people whose job is to optimize model weights to yield highly specific outcomes
2. Agentic tourism - maybe you’ll be able to send your AI agent/robot to visit a place before you decide if it worth your time and investment
3. Vehicular trains on highways where vehicles going to similar destinations coordinate and move as a unit. There’ll be people optimising roads for this. E.g., exit lanes on highways are designed for a handful of cars to exit safely at a time. What if vehicular trains can be thousands of vehicles long like those going to Burning Man?
4. Hallucination historians - people whose job is to document how AI errors have led to changes in the course of history
5. Animal linguistics - people whose can finally study the correlations between how human and animal languages deliver the same information
6. People designing puzzles and challenges to keep AI engaged during routine maintenance
7. S3x workers who specialise in servicing AI bots
8. Cryptographers whose job if to encode content using non mathematical methods because math base cryptography has become a solved problem
9. Interior designers who specialise in humanised decor because everything else is now handled by AI
10. Lawyers who fight cases on AI’s right to participate in the world as equals of biologics
Few of those seem like human jobs vs AI jobs in any scenario where AI is good enough to need to find massive amounts of new human jobs? Some of them explicitly aren't jobs, even in your description, like "send your AI agent/robot to visit a place."
(7) is basically "a mechanic/service technician" which is literally a job that already exists all over the place. Is is, at least, the only one that doesn't seem like one of these "agents" could do itself today, but in the world where the agents get that good, that level of robotic ability - the ability to manipulate a screwdriver with human dexterity - doesn't seem very far off at all and is being actively invested in by many many people.
You’re probably right that many jobs can eventually be done by AI but not on day 1. Between Day 1 of the brave new AI world and Day N, humans will be in the loop doing stuff that other humans will try to automate away ad nauseam. On Day N+1, there’ll be yet another HN question asking what exactly humans will be doing in the Braver Newer AI World.
Actually Brave New World was a utopia, not dystopia. Many confuse it with 1984.
Every need of the common people was met and their happiness was catered for. And those who were unusually independent, intellectually curious, creative or couldn’t fit in were “exiled”, to a place with their equals, where their were free to continue their studies, art, etc.
Imagine a world where the MAGAs are happy and content instead of angry.
What? Brave New World is Huxley’s famous dystopian novel. Like many dystopian novels it is presented as a utopia to begin with that unravels to expose it’s horrors as the plot unfolds.
My guess is you are deleting the word each time. Unlike the FUTO keyboard, the iPhone keyboard will give you different results each time after you delete because it assumes that if you delete a word, it’s probably because the autocomplete got it wrong, so it gives you a different result on the next try.
A workaround is to use the Notes app and use the return key to make a new line after each try, rather than deleting. That should give you more consistent results.
A log the victim ran over last week loosened the bolts.
The prosecution wouldn't even blink if you pointed this out.
Unless the perpetrator intended for that to be the effect.
Have you heard about mens rea?
It turns random logging into laying logs onto a road intending to harm someone with the foreknowledge that they will harm the target and as a consequence any other people traveling on that road.
fine. Place a log on your own property - equivalent of posting a prompt on your own blog - then leave the gate open (equivalent of posting on the internet) only to have someone drive over that log uninvited and blame you for it.
Is writing a prompt in your blog any different from laying a hunting trap on your own property and catching someone's pet? Are you liable for the pet wandering on your property?
> Say I lay a log on a road which you can clearly see and avoid but choose to drive over and crash your car, that’s prompt injection.
Start laying hazards in the middle of the road and see how quickly the police introduce you to things like “reckless endangerment” and “involuntary manslaughter”. The general social contract is that you don’t take actions with the intent of causing harm to others regardless of whether the victim could have avoided the harm had they taken different actions.
both are intentional, both are wrong, we don't need to compare two wrong things and say one is better.. you also cannot predict whether intentionally leaving a hazard in a roadway will give someone a choice, that very thing happens all the time and it causes a significant number of deaths.
... what? Data centers are literally the original form of computer facility. How are they different from the computer rooms mainframes, etc were housed in?
Sounds like an opportunity! One thing about these 'sadistic casino' domains is that small edges can have outsized impact. Even imperfect data that's swamped in noise can work. As long as the noise is consistent enough to be modeled, you can glean actionable insight.
Outdoor billboards are often priced based on raw traffic count. Imagine using a cheap license plate reader to sample traffic looking for enough identity data to map back to actual consumer behavior. Even if you can only do it for a few days and only a fraction of percent of your samples correlate to partial data, given high enough stakes and noise - just adding that as a correction overlay on your existing shitty model can yield a winning edge. In the land of illusions, any ground truth can be gold.
reply