slg

>This is not that much different in programming, it just takes longer to find out.

The primary difference is that it's much easier for the AI to figure out itself if it's wrong on the programming side. Knowledge workers don't have automated testing for example.

The end result is the knowledge worker needs to be more heavily involved in the process and be more mindful of mistakes which makes it a worse experience for the user and generally less productive than it is for programmers.

You are arguing against no one. The "almost" indicated an admission it was possible. No one was accusing people in the past of being stupid. My point was about the practicality of it. Or to rephrase the same idea, what percentage of human communication do you think was encrypted in the 18th century compared to today?

That's why it works as an analogy to mass surveillance. Surveillance was always possible, but now it is scaled up so a much higher percentage of our activity is surveilled. The commonality is that computers made these two things much easier to do. The purpose of my comment was to show that's not inherently good or bad by showing one example of when that's viewed as good and another when it's viewed as bad.

Maybe you skipped over the "almost no one" aspect of that section you quoted. I didn’t claim that encryption was historically impossible in the same way the original comment didn't claim that it’s impossible for a cop to just sit around and watch a public road. The original point was about scale and the scale (and strength) of encryption available today was not possible for most people until the advent of computers.

>We know why it's different of course: scale. But there was never a general principle about scale and automation articulated in the Constitution because it just wasn't a thing to worry about in the 1700s.

If we're doing the whole "the other team get to play lawyer too" thing, your logic can become dangerous when applied to other issues. For example, almost no one had the ability to protect their communication and personal files from warrants when the laws regarding that sort of thing were written and computers have now made that trivial. Would people here treat that as a valid argument against end-to-end encryption?

I don't think people are ready for the amount of work AI agents are going to be creating for real humans. We're effectively putting the tools of mass spammers in the hands of everyone and it's going to be incredibly frustrating for all involved. "If it takes me 30 seconds to fire off a prompt that has potential to benefit me it's worth it regardless of the 2 minutes of work it creates for a dozen people" scaled to all of society.

Thanks for sharing this and making that suggestion all those years ago!

Sure, but when one of these investments makes moves that, perhaps coincidentally, make them more polite in Saudi society, it brings up questions regarding the motivation in a way it wouldn't for some other owner.

One of the notable ways BioWare pushed the industry forward was the ability for the player to initiate a romance storyline with any one of a variety of in game characters. That often included the option of romancing characters of the same gender. I point this out because the Saudi Investment Fund bought EA a couple months back and they obviously have very strong opinions on those sorts of relationships. Are these two connected? I don't know, there are plenty of other potential reasons to close a studio, so probably not. But these are now the sort of questions we have to ask ourselves anytime EA makes a decision like this.

It feels like people are trying their best to not understand me. I'm not saying every manipulator is self-aware. I'm saying Holmes is self-aware.

Maybe you all have to see the movie to understand what I'm saying. In many ways, the image she presents in the movie is nearly diametrically opposed from the image you have of Holmes going in. That shows she's very likely aware of the image she had previously. She's appears to be trying to counteract the narrative in such a specific way that it can't be accidental. It's more complicated than just her continuing to claim innocence, she's practically a different person in this movie. Someone like Trump could never transform themselves like that. And it is that transformation which makes me think she's self-aware.

If she has delusions of grandeur, I think that makes it even more likely that she's self-aware. Once again, Fielder lived with her 24/7. If Fielder didn't see it over that time, it's likely because she was hiding it, and if she's hiding it, she's likely aware of it.

Once again, I guess I'm not being clear. I agree with you generally, but we aren't talking about 50 different dimensions of her character. It's not like I'm not saying her behavior at Theranos indicates something about the type of mother she is to her kids. I'm saying if she's a manipulator she's a masterful and self-aware manipulator. That's just one compartment.

Delusional to what degree? Because fraud and manipulation typically require intent. If she has lost touch with reality to the degree that she believes her lies, she needs psychiatric help and I haven't seen a single person offer that defense including her legal team or the two successive men that served the joint role of her business and romantic partner. If she's that detached from reality, wouldn't it be more likely that she's the one being manipulated by the non-delusional folks around her? How could she be the ringleader of this fraud and manipulation if she's the delusional one and everyone else is sane? Those are some of the questions the movie explores.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying she's innocent. I'm saying this idea of her being guilty is incompatible with this view that she's just a stupid person with no self-awareness who doesn't know when to shut up. One of those two descriptions of her is wrong.

That's why I referenced that Fielder quote. Either she's innocent (unlikely) or she's an incredibly self-aware person with a remarkable degree of social intelligence. The image she's painting of herself is too expertly constructed for her to have gotten there accidentally, it's either the truth or a deftly orchestrated piece of fiction. You can't manipulate people to the level she has been accused of through nothing but dumb luck.

>Watching a panel about the movie with the Bad Blood author someone mentioned she almost is dressing the exact opposite of her old appearance. Earthy brown sweater instead of black turtleneck and hair down instead of in a pony tail. Even her initial image is eerie in how much she directly knocked off Steve Jobs' appearance on reflection.

Isn't that a sign of her being self-aware? The image she presents in this movie being almost diametrically opposed to the image she had previously (and that goes beyond wardrobe) shows an awareness of that prior image.