mannanj

they are covering all losses, so why would anyone sue? companies have done significantly worse and then just left you with a $6 class action lawsuit damage claim. What a sham to say to so disproportionately target the crypto company when you have public American companies that harbor criminals as employees still operating today.

actually, your comment is naive. clearly you don't understand game theory and economic incentives. if a company doesn't reward good behavior, you'll see bad behavior.

but then again since you're not naive, you already know these AI companies like openai already act evil and like bad entities.

I conclude therefore, per your words "you are the last one anyone should consult with, basically about anything"

What about AI? Do you think that had no impact here? Certainly I've noticed all knowledge professions gain a sense of urgency, survival like psychosis-style thinking, and deterioration of quality and human thinking.

This is how jailbreaks work though, in reverse. The AI providers put a lot of work into stopping jailbreaks, so, something tells me they won't be able to have it both ways. They either block jailbreaks, or allow the LLM from programming in all languages.

I think you are still naive and IMO ignorant, as I was getting to in my comment.

So don't straw man please into changing the focus into war because you're uncomfortable. I can see I struck a chord - would you agree you're shifting onto a straw man? And sounds a defensive retort to then reduce my argument to absurdity to dismiss it and invalidate it.

Why should I engage your straw man? Are you uncomfortable? I'm not - but why would I engage you if you failed to demonstrate you heard me. edit: if you're going into an emotionally hostile state, I refuse to take on the emotional labor of being your emotional processing for you - we can agree to mutually disengage.

Sounds like instead you're just uncomfortable and with your hypocritical Ad hominem you justify your own intellectual dishonesty.

You responded with Ad Hominem, which is fundamentally intellectually dishonest - and then accused me the exact thing you're doing.

I meant to say that our society is embedded in elitist thinking. It says you must be qualified to have an opinion, and today as has accelerated in the COVID era starting with naming “safety” as the cause, you get censored and cancelled for thinking outside of line.

It’s actually very elitist. It’s the society I see dominating the environment around me. Would I like things to be this way? No.

How many humans are worth restoring the coral reef?

Because it’s nice to say these things in Sentiment, until you see past the naïveté to see human lives are what cause the wear and extraction on the environment. Humans live, eat, shit in, consume their environment for their lives.

How many humans are worth restoring the reef for you? And would you sacrifice your own friends and family?

That wasn't software engineers eliminating that work. And neither is it today AI eliminating software jobs. Let's name the straw man in the room: it's humans displacing humans, and extracting the value for themselves.

Just like in past history.

Yes, it sucks, for software engineers, those in the past, and those in the future. As long as you and others fall for the straw man perhaps you and others will get more and more tricked and hurt, misplacing your aggression and hatred on each other rather than those receiving most of the extracted value.

I like that, I can see that being true and working.

The hard part is indeed that we have to exert all this effort to get past the noise that I (and maybe you) feel a responsible author should have already done for us.

And with AI: I was hoping it would help us filter through this noise. So far, I feel lost in how to use AI to help me filter through prejudice and bias, and hidden motives and intentions, when the very filters given to us in the mainstream AIs we are sold are doing that same very bias and incoherency and hidden agendas. I retain my hope, however! Thank you for some solace and inspiration here, friend!

Hasn't thinking already become a hobby for most people, and most delegate their thinking to others?

Think: those in authority figures, for church or politics. Or science or chemistry. And especially in their own health, which should always remain part art. A few nerds on the internet, like us in hacker news, are still remaining open to question and apply our hard thinking to tough problems. But most people: they've resigned and bought the belief they are not qualified to think about hard problems.

yeah, sure. Do you think all scientific literature is the same though? I am skeptical of thinking to just look at them all equally. Clearly, if theres a class of people being held unaccountable who have been practicing imposing their will and power on the people, that has certainly been done in the scientific community and would show in the literature, too.

So when I think of going through any media like scientific publications, I wonder how to discern and point out the captured and biased media vs the more objective ones (or at least the ones that don't have a hidden financial motive behind them). I wish our scientific community had better disclaimers and traceability for financial influence in every paper we could read.

been a while since ive see the real talk on hacker news. its refreshing. usually I feel like I'm the only one among nerds asking to hold people accountable.

so, how do you think we can do this?

Yeah. and when I worked at capital one last year, the auto navigator division - my manager after not liking me tried to also fire me with a PIP and it started by asking me to come into the office in a specific work window.

after that, it changed to talking and speaking in a particular way in MRs and PRs (and "not" pushing back so much in them and being more agreeable). of course later the manager turned everything into "appease me" because whenever I would do my work and check off the boxes on the PIP he would say he couldn't see it because he didn't receive notice of it in the way he liked. Of course sharing in the pip review meetings weekly did not meet his needs to confirm "I did the things".

Employers will do anything to discriminate against you, legally or illegally, if it meets their leadership agendas. I especially have felt indian-pakistani hate and abuse during this process and was just so exhausted I never bothered to lawyer up.

Absolutely not. Tell me a single company where the same executives are subject to the invasive privacy metrics.

Even like Facebook: the AI training stuff was applied to software engineers and staff but definitely not executives.