You'd be better off mentioning Safari (17% of users vs. Chrome's 68% and Firefox's 2.2%) and Bing (10% vs Google's 85% and DDG's 1.7%). But nice to know there are two of us!
What? Of course it isn't! I mean, I guess you could argue that it's technically a slur in the sense that it is disparaging, but obviously the guy knows that he's being disparaging- you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong, and bureaucrat is not that. It also refers specifically and exclusively to the parts of the government that aren't democratically elected; the opposite of what you're saying.
Even setting that aside, 'the fat cheeto and his deplorable clowns in congress' is a slur for a democratically elected government, "the will of the people". So what? We shouldn't be allowed to insult a democratically elected government for some reason? Democracies are certainly preferable to autocracies, but that doesn't mean 'democratically elected' is a synonym for 'good'.
"you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong"
you are reading into this too much, slur is often used as a word for a general insult.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to respond to 'I don't want to deal with their bureaucrats' with 'You do realize that's an insult, right?'. Yeah, he realizes, he is clearly trying to be insulting. It's only an insult because of that intent, in fact. A lot more sensible if the intent is to suggest that the word ought not be used because it is an insult beyond what is acceptable in polite society, which is the much more common usage of 'slur'.
Not to say it's impossible you're right that it's being brought up irrelevantly, but I do think the odds are on my side and I further think it would be worth writing a sentence calling that out even if they weren't.
His point, I assume, was that many people insulting beurocrats think that those are somehow seperate from the people they elected i.e. it's not some unidentifiable blob responsible for these things but the person /you/ voted for. At least that's my charitable interpretation.
I don't think this is a question of framing or ignoring problematic behavior at all. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't find it anywhere near comparably egregious if Google added a new developer option without your consent- the most significant problem is the 4GB and the LLM. And, of course, you did consent to their software terms. You are free to switch browsers. What does consent have to do with this?
yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has value.
They mean the models are rare, not the devices. The claim is if you want feature X + removable battery, it's unlikely that you will find it. People's willingness to forgo the battery for feature X therefore doesn't tell you if people care about removable batteries in an absolute sense, just that they care relatively less than they do about feature X.
You could argue that the market already reflects people's desires via, eg., Apple's market research. They could argue that democracy in the EU also reflects people's desires.
Am I misreading that paper? They define hallucinations as anything other than the correct answer and prove that there are infinitely many questions an LLM can't answer correctly, but that's true of any architecture- there are infinitely many problems a team of geniuses with supercomputers can't answer. If an LLM can be made to reliably say "I don't know" when it doesn't, hallucinations are solved- they contend that this doesn't matter because you can keep drawing from your pile of infinite unanswerable questions and the LLM will either never answer or will make something up. Seems like a technically true result that isn't usefully true.
>The source in your link for that energy claim links to a blog post that then links back to an earlier blog post from the original author of the link you provided (it's basically a circular reference).
Huh? The latter blog post does link to the former's blog, but not as a source for that claim. It cites an Altman blog, an estimate from EpochAI, an article in the MIT Technology Review (albeit one that estimates 3x higher), and a paper put out by Google. It's really surprisingly well cited and I don't know how you came away from it thinking it was a circular reference. The google study is in the subheading!
2) I click the link associated with the 0.3 Wh of energy claim in the section "The full cost of a prompt".
3) The link from 2) takes me to a blog post from Hannah Ritchie. In Hannah's post, I click a link associated with the following excerpt:
"Third, as a result, more recent estimates suggested that the assumptions I relied on (h/t to Andy Masley’s work on this) — that one standard query used 3 watt-hours (Wh) of electricity — were possibly an order of magnitude too high. In this case, I was happy to be conservative and overestimate the energy use."
4) This link takes me to the author of your original post, but earlier.
None of this quantifies cost per token, which is really the much more relevant metric than whatever a "cost per text based query" means => which I think is both quite broad and quite model dependent.
What I want to know is who is manufacturing these police cars that let these cops travel to execute unlawful warrants. "Oh, but it's not our fault. We just built due-process-violation machines. It's the police who are driving them to citizen's locations and violating due process." Come on.
~Everybody is motivated by money or else not motivated at all. Money is potential energy for essentially any objective you might have, whether that's developing new tech or donating to charity. By cutting money out, you just select for the subset of people who are more motivated by power or status or who already have more money than they know what to do with.
It should be obvious that there's a balance between wanting enough money to live comfortably and wanting as much money as possible. Government jobs should be good enough for the former.
It's not clear the mismanaged massive evacuation was even necessary. In hindsight its like that less people would have died if they just stayed there for a few more days.
The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.
If I don't trust my doctor, I can ignore them and find a new doctor.
If I don't trust my therapist, I can ignore them and find a new therapist.
If I don't trust my housekeeper, I can fire them and hire a new housekeeper.
If I don't trust a police officer, it doesn't matter. If they detain me and order me to step out of my vehicle, I have to comply under threat of the law and violence. I don't get to only listen to police officers whom I trust.
That is why they must be held to a higher standard, because they wield elevated authority not granted to ordinary citizens.
A police officer who has demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the law and safety can not be trusted as a police officer to uphold the law.
Are you saying you don't trust the people I mentioned for the reasons I mentioned? That a doctor who has demostrated a reckless disregard for his health outside of the law etc. etc.? Like, I get why trust is more important in this context, but I don't think it's at all normal to assume someone can't do their job because of decisions they make in their personal life.
It was, and I was pretty clear that I understood that. It dodges my point, though, and I've asked that they acknowledge it: should you distrust unhealthy doctors, not can you? Is unhealthiness in one's personal life disqualifying for the ability to provide stellar health advice in one's professional life? Should cops be held to the standard of being exemplary citizens who don't even speed? Have you ever sped? Do you know anyone who has never sped?
Maybe! Is their health status directly related to their specialty? Is it a readily curable condition? Is their advice reasonable?
Or are they a lung cancer specialist chain smoking cigarettes at the appointment?
> Should cops be held to the standard of being exemplary citizens who don't even speed?
Yes, cops should be held to a higher standard than the general public. Being a cop while committing a crime should be an aggravating circumstance in the justice system, not a get-out-of-jail card.
Should we expect perfection? No. But 547 speeding tickets is unacceptable.
Yes, the doctor's advice is reasonable and no the doctor is not smoking at a lung cancer appointment. The premise is that they are messing up off the job. If you think an oncologist shouldn't be able to get as good of a job because they smoke cigarettes or eat burgers, that is where we disagree. Apart from calling that illiberal or saying it has negative utility in its consequences, I don't know how to argue that; it's a values difference. I appreciate you actually taking the position, though.
Same for your cop positions. You say they should, I say they shouldn't. If it's clarifying, I can add that I agree that cops should be held to a higher standard while being cops, ie. that things like qualified immunity are working in the wrong direction, and that they shouldn't be held to a lower standard, on- or off-duty.
As far as I'm concerned, speeding tickets in the course of your private life are between you and the ticketing authority. If he's not paying his fines, if he's violating the social contract, sure, escalate. If we want to punish speeders with more than fines because of endangerment, like the article strongly suggests, sure, change the law. But as long as he's compliant with his fines and we're only giving him fines, it's not just to continue to pile on consequences.
Each of those examples varies widely, and I don't think most people would treat each of them the same way.
In general when the stakes are higher and the ambiguity of outcome is less clear, secondary signals become more important.
Concretely: I don't give a shit if my housecleaner doesn't make their own bed as long as they make mine; the outcome I need is easy to verify and the stakes are fairly low so the secondary signal doesn't matter very much. Conversely, I care a lot if the therapist I'm relying on to help me manage my depression is visibly unable to manage their own; the outcome I need has a slow feedback loop and the stakes are high so I'm much more likely to rely on secondary signals like "is this person able to manage their own mood successfully?"
In your version of the therapist example, you don't trust them to do their job because they are failing to do their job. This is fine by me. My issue is with punishing people at their job over actions taken outside of their job, as in the example under discussion.
Huh? Your examples are all people failing at something that merely resembles their job. For the analogy to work, Giovansanti would need to be failing at something in his personal life that resembles traffic enforcement. Instead he's doing the exact thing his job exists to prevent.
reply