purplepatrick

Who's "we"? I am not in that group...

Yes, I’m very familiar. I have no inner semantic articulation whatsoever. When I hear people talk about meditation (clearing your head, etc.) it always amuses me, because that's my normal state. It's completely still up there...

But it’s more than that. I don’t have any conscious notions of thought at all. It’s much more like these guys in the tv show Severance who stare at numbers until “it feels right”.

The end result just pops into my head, often just as a feeling, not even as anything graspable, and only takes semantic shape when I say it out loud or write it. And even when I write it, it continues — it’s like a constant irking feeling of calibration that never feels quite right until it does.

There is one exception: demi-sleep is the only state where I can ruminate (e.g. stress-related), but then it's also non-verbal -- more like a combination of images and sensations. It's hard for me to put into words (no pun intended)...

As someone with zero exposure to my own thought processes, I find this always so discriminatory! ;)

The author says they could narrate their own thought process out loud.

I couldn’t do that. I have no insight into my thought processes whatsoever. There are no semantic (or any other) processes to witness. It’s complete crickets at all times…

My wife is the opposite - constant chatter in her head. And she can trace every thought exactly. (No idea how people like her can focus or even function!)

While I directionally agree with the conclusion, O-Net is not a good source for relevant occupational and task classifications.

While it is continuously updated, it lacks many modern white-collar occupations, such as occupations in finance, tech, or consulting. And when it does carry an occupation, it often misses the mark on the relevant task set.

Every immigration attorney who had to build labor certs around O-Net can confirm how frustrating and backwards the database is. Just imagine trying to justify an H1-B for, say, a sales & trading associate at an investment bank when the only available options are bank teller, financial analyst, risk examiner, and 2-3 other ill-fitting categories.

That being said, occupational classification is an impossible task for a variety of reasons..

Yes, and this is completely normal. Not sure I get the point of his post. Most likely, stating the obvious is what you gotto do to keep your followers "engaged".

The average person does not have the time to occupy themselves with a new thing to see what it can maybe do for them if they combine it with hundreds of others. Until non-chat-bot AI comes in discrete usable packages, mass adoption will be limited, because it's all just a big bunch of lego pieces whose utility is hard to grasp, because it isn't self-evident.

This isn't new, though. It's how "technology" usually works. For example, human(oid)s have been able to stick sticks into things for ~500k years, but the fork wasn't "invented" until ~2-4k years ago.

AI is a background technology, a building block. Something that is best appreciated when you don't know it's there -- when it just does a job (well). The end-in-itself POV of the tech industry is self-indulgent and irrelevant for the average person.

List prices are entirely fictional. Nobody pays them. Their sole purpose is price anchoring for negotiations with insurers. Hospitals know they have to give 80-90% discounts to certain payers so they set them high.

There is zero value in showing them. All they do is demonstrate a dumb pricing game that could easily be ended if the GOP didn’t conflate “single-payer” with “single-provider” and scream socialism.

Moreover 80%+ of hospitals no longer charge on a fee-for-service basis but through DRG (diagnosis related groups) as part of a value based care model. So these itemized list prices are doubly moot.

Cute. Of course, beyond basic deal breakers, neither do people know their preferences (but they think they do), nor do the majority of preference categories actually matter.

This is a common problem with all dating apps. Specifically, interests, hobbies, daily routines, objectives, etc. have nothing to do with compatibility.

“We like the same things!” is the compatibility signal of a naive 22-yr old…

The content of this article doesn’t show what the title says.

Neither the foreign-born population nor the proportion of foreign-born individuals say anything about the “current immigration”.

But I guess it works, because nowhere is “immigration” defined either…

Point taken. However, as the author works in FINtech, I’m feeling compelled to add that the revenue reversal figure itself is neither “cost” nor “loss” and should not be included in the $229.

I’m really not trying to sound like an ass, but it never occurred to me that anyone would seriously believe that language is required for “logic”.

Babbling toddlers can do logic. I sometimes can also do logic, even though I don’t have an inner voice and don’t formulate thoughts in words of any kind. As I’m relatively sure I’m not an ET alien, there are probably plenty of people like me.

Yup. If only there were a task completion hook that could be set to fire prior to rendering terminal output. That would more handily address all these issues, as we could simply enforce output style rules that way.

The current output style does work, but it’s a Sisyphean task to tweak it constantly only to find out that CC adhere’s to only 75% of it, no matter what…

If monkey know how to open coconut and monkey like coconut, then eating coconut is what make monkey happy, not knowing how to open coconut or reflecting on its ability to do so…

Methinks AI hasn’t been as successful in non-verifiable domains, because they are non-verifiable, not because there’s no version control…