A quiet announcement by several schools in my area that they will not pass the full rise onto parents has kicked off a panic in the local council.
The schools in question do a lot of free stuff for the state schools in the area. Not just lending sports facilities. But providing sports coaching to go with it. Free laptop programs and IT support for schools. Etc.
They are quite open about their budgeting - the charitable activities are paid for out of the difference between revenue and expenditure. If revenue is squeezed, the council is assuming (probably correctly) that the charitable works will be reduced.
Don't worry with the extra tax revenue we can fund our schools properly instead of going begging to the toffs.
So your plan is to raise taxes from from wealthy parents currently give to private schools, and then spend it on... leasing sports facilities from private schools?
Here's an idea - just cut out the middleman?
Or perhaps you want to build hundreds of sports facilities within the grounds of state schools, at vastly greater expense?
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
It's not inconceivable that he will lose his seat. He's hardly the epitome of the 'local hardworking MP' since he got binned off as leader; add in a REFUK candidate to siphon off a coupla thousand crazies, a tacit Green-Lab-LD pact and you've got the recipe for asking 'were you up for Uxbridge and South Ruislip?'.
The downside is that it would be sorely tempting for Labour activists to focus on this seat at the expense of tighter ones.
This last point is why I keep banging on about logistics when people start forecasting majorities of 300 plus. There are only so many activists to go round.
A quiet announcement by several schools in my area that they will not pass the full rise onto parents has kicked off a panic in the local council.
The schools in question do a lot of free stuff for the state schools in the area. Not just lending sports facilities. But providing sports coaching to go with it. Free laptop programs and IT support for schools. Etc.
They are quite open about their budgeting - the charitable activities are paid for out of the difference between revenue and expenditure. If revenue is squeezed, the council is assuming (probably correctly) that the charitable works will be reduced.
Don't worry with the extra tax revenue we can fund our schools properly instead of going begging to the toffs.
So your plan is to raise taxes from from wealthy parents currently give to private schools, and then spend it on... leasing sports facilities from private schools?
Here's an idea - just cut out the middleman?
Or perhaps you want to build hundreds of sports facilities within the grounds of state schools, at vastly greater expense?
Ideally the grounds wouldn't have been sold off in the first place.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
@SophGarratt Spanish media reporting police presence at U.S. embassy in Madrid. Possible 6th letter bomb sent there after similar letters sent to Ukrainian embassy, the Spanish PM and other government/military sites in recent days.
All these people who have now got the arsehole over lockdowns, etc need to remember that they locked themselves down. They barricaded themselves into their own homes for months on end just because utter wankers like Johnson and Hancock told them to. Take responsibility. You did it to yourselves.
An increasing level of mindless obedience in society is BY FAR the biggest result of state action relating to SARSCoV2.
It's not inconceivable that he will lose his seat. He's hardly the epitome of the 'local hardworking MP' since he got binned off as leader; add in a REFUK candidate to siphon off a coupla thousand crazies, a tacit Green-Lab-LD pact and you've got the recipe for asking 'were you up for Uxbridge and South Ruislip?'.
The downside is that it would be sorely tempting for Labour activists to focus on this seat at the expense of tighter ones.
This last point is why I keep banging on about logistics when people start forecasting majorities of 300 plus. There are only so many activists to go round.
Even so, Labour should be careful about their candidate selection in safe Tory seats. A lot of people who would normally be paper candidates have a very good chance of being elected.
It's not inconceivable that he will lose his seat. He's hardly the epitome of the 'local hardworking MP' since he got binned off as leader; add in a REFUK candidate to siphon off a coupla thousand crazies, a tacit Green-Lab-LD pact and you've got the recipe for asking 'were you up for Uxbridge and South Ruislip?'.
The downside is that it would be sorely tempting for Labour activists to focus on this seat at the expense of tighter ones.
This last point is why I keep banging on about logistics when people start forecasting majorities of 300 plus. There are only so many activists to go round.
Yeah, 100%. Plus LAB won't have all (or as many) of the Magic Grandpa momentum kids banging on doors.
Conversely though - I wonder if the Tories in particular will struggle on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if they LDs do better than any Baxterisation suggests at this stage.
Weaver Vale was always strong for Lab but the Cons were helped by the 2010 boundary changes, which took out a Runcorn ward. It has now drifted away from the Cons again. Weaver Vale is planned to be abolished and will be split between a Runcorn seat (safe Lab) and a Mid Cheshire seat (Lab-leaning marginal)
It would be interesting to hear from anyone on the ground in Chester. From outside, it all looks incredibly low key and as if turnout will be tiny... but maybe it's been more visible where it matters.
Voted this morning. Labour has been the only party doing anything, lots of posters up and plenty of leaflets . Little doubt in my mind that Labour will win but it's really a Labour v Apathy contest.
Tories have been invisible which is surprising in a seat that has been a marginal up till quite recently. Tells us something I suppose.
Other than Labour I have seen about 3 Green Party posters and the Reform UK candidate had a stall in the centre a couple of Saturday's ago. Just her and no takers while I was walking around. One Tory. one Reform and one Rejoin EU leaflet all delivered by royal mail. About 6 from Labour, hand delivered, 1 Lib Dem hand delivered. Canvassed twice (both by Labour)
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
It's not inconceivable that he will lose his seat. He's hardly the epitome of the 'local hardworking MP' since he got binned off as leader; add in a REFUK candidate to siphon off a coupla thousand crazies, a tacit Green-Lab-LD pact and you've got the recipe for asking 'were you up for Uxbridge and South Ruislip?'.
The downside is that it would be sorely tempting for Labour activists to focus on this seat at the expense of tighter ones.
This last point is why I keep banging on about logistics when people start forecasting majorities of 300 plus. There are only so many activists to go round.
Even so, Labour should be careful about their candidate selection in safe Tory seats. A lot of people who would normally be paper candidates have a very good chance of being elected.
I've a friend who is local LAB member in a safe-ish Tory seat (it's at the more distant end of winnable; current majority of about 7k I think). I can only speak for him, but it sounds like the Corbynista era is over there at least, and they're carefully selecting from a few decent, experienced local councillors.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The yokels ended up in urban labour, mooching unhappily around street corners in the unemployment crises.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The yokels ended up in urban labour, mooching unhappily around street corners in the unemployment crises.
Or they became slave-like labour in grimy mills and factories
The first decades of the Industrial Revolution were pretty grim for a lot of people. The AI Revolution might be similar
When Australia scored 482-5 on the first day against South Africa, at Adelaide in 2012, it took them 86.5 overs (third highest ever first day score; the second highest was in 1910 and we don't know how many overs were bowled on day1)
When Australia scored 482-5 on the first day against South Africa, at Adelaide in 2012, it took them 86.5 overs (third highest ever first day score; the second highest was in 1910 and we don't know how many overs were bowled on day1)
That's a run rate of 5.55 rpo
England's today was 6.75 rpo, over 20% quicker
I believe they said that England beat the record for fastest team to reach 500 by more than ten overs!
A quiet announcement by several schools in my area that they will not pass the full rise onto parents has kicked off a panic in the local council.
The schools in question do a lot of free stuff for the state schools in the area. Not just lending sports facilities. But providing sports coaching to go with it. Free laptop programs and IT support for schools. Etc.
They are quite open about their budgeting - the charitable activities are paid for out of the difference between revenue and expenditure. If revenue is squeezed, the council is assuming (probably correctly) that the charitable works will be reduced.
Don't worry with the extra tax revenue we can fund our schools properly instead of going begging to the toffs.
So your plan is to raise taxes from from wealthy parents currently give to private schools, and then spend it on... leasing sports facilities from private schools?
Here's an idea - just cut out the middleman?
Or perhaps you want to build hundreds of sports facilities within the grounds of state schools, at vastly greater expense?
Plus the DfE will take extra funds and not spend them on IT support for schools. For example.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The ex-farming labourers mostly got jobs in industry (industrialisation) or scrabbled together some kind of precarious inferior living in impoverished areas of big cities (urbanisation). The latter is still happening in the world.
The ongoing information-based technological revolution is not akin to previous technological revolutions starting with the industrial revolution because there won't be a net increase in employment. It goes together with a mass cull the likes of which there's never been before. It's megadeath in a big string of 0s and 1s - death for millions, and death in the minds and active humanity of many individuals suffered to live too. The religion it brings is vile and says it all - humans as machines, when we are not machines. This is what that nutcase Turing meant when he wrote of machines "thinking".
Yes, though in fairness a fascist still celebrated by many nationalists (especially in the west of the country) as a great hero (cf. the "Commemoration" section of the wikipedia link cited by Malmesbury). The undoubted fact that the pro-Nazi (a reasonable description IMO) leaders were partly reacting to the Stalinist atrocities in the 30s doesn't excuse veneration of them in the current generation.
One can condemn the Russian invasion, support efforts by Ukraine to fight it off, and still be wary of aspects of the Ukrainian nationalist tradition, and it's understandable that the Germans are basically in that position. We need to penalise the invasion by helping to halt it (as has been largely done) and accepting Ukraine into the EU and possibly NATO (making a fresh attack suicidal for Russia). We don't need to help extend the conflict until the last nationalist claim (e.g. Crimea) is (re)captured.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The yokels ended up in urban labour, mooching unhappily around street corners in the unemployment crises.
They all eventually ended up in bloody call centres.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The ex-farming labourers mostly got jobs in industry or scrabbled together some kind of precarious inferior living in impoverished areas of big cities.
Hm. I'm thinking more of the farming mechanisation of the 1890-1950 period.
The rural to urban shift of the early industrial revolution was driven, I think, more by rural overpopulation, leading to the need for land consolidation and the de-landing of rural smallholders. Not an irrelevant comparison, however.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The yokels ended up in urban labour, mooching unhappily around street corners in the unemployment crises.
They all eventually ended up in bloody call centres.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The ex-farming labourers mostly got jobs in industry or scrabbled together some kind of precarious inferior living in impoverished areas of big cities.
Hm. I'm thinking more of the farming mechanisation of the 1890-1950 period.
The rural to urban shift of the early industrial revolution was driven, I think, more by rural overpopulation, leading to the need for land consolidation and the de-landing of rural smallholders. Not an irrelevant comparison, however.
Are you the Duke of somewhere? Of course the countryside *looks* overpopulated once you have enclosed all the commons.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The ex-farming labourers mostly got jobs in industry or scrabbled together some kind of precarious inferior living in impoverished areas of big cities.
Hm. I'm thinking more of the farming mechanisation of the 1890-1950 period.
The rural to urban shift of the early industrial revolution was driven, I think, more by rural overpopulation, leading to the need for land consolidation and the de-landing of rural smallholders. Not an irrelevant comparison, however.
There was the rise of cottage industry in the countryside.
Later during tractorisation the ex-farming labourers still went to industries and the cities. There was nowhere else they could go. Conditions there were certainly better in say 1930 than 1850, e.g. the number of hours worked per week had fallen as productivity rose, and in a country such as Britain people got Saturday afternoons off.
For a few generations now there has been insane over-employment in offices, which is to say managerialism and often what appears to be bullsh*t almost for the sake of bullsh*t. It's wasteful to an extreme and is unsustainable.
AI can increase productivity but not to the extent of preparing the way for creating large numbers of new real jobs actually making stuff. That would have to mean e.g. that most of us only wear a pair of shoes or use a set of chairs for a day before we throw them away - an increase in turnover and circulation that would be so extreme that it isn't going to happen. The info revolution means megadeath and its patron saint is Malthus.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The ex-farming labourers mostly got jobs in industry or scrabbled together some kind of precarious inferior living in impoverished areas of big cities.
Hm. I'm thinking more of the farming mechanisation of the 1890-1950 period.
The rural to urban shift of the early industrial revolution was driven, I think, more by rural overpopulation, leading to the need for land consolidation and the de-landing of rural smallholders. Not an irrelevant comparison, however.
Are you the Duke of somewhere? Of course the countryside *looks* overpopulated once you have enclosed all the commons.
Basically, pre-enclosure England was barely able to support itself agriculturally. It was woefully inefficient. I don't claim that the enclosure act was wonderful for the displaced peasantry. Nor was it the only solution to agricultural inefficiency. But it was the path taken: and that was what freed up an army of urban labourers to man the industrial revolution.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
I think the problem (if the transcript posted earlier on here is correct) comes from the fact that this wasn't just a question of a single or even once repeated question. It was a persistent refusal to understand that a non white person could be truly British. The 'what part of Africa' bit so late in the exchange was particularly egregious.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
So far, automation has meant that humans are kicked up stairs to more and higher supervisory roles. That’s the history of IT from the point where people *were* computers onwards.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The ex-farming labourers mostly got jobs in industry or scrabbled together some kind of precarious inferior living in impoverished areas of big cities.
Hm. I'm thinking more of the farming mechanisation of the 1890-1950 period.
The rural to urban shift of the early industrial revolution was driven, I think, more by rural overpopulation, leading to the need for land consolidation and the de-landing of rural smallholders. Not an irrelevant comparison, however.
Are you the Duke of somewhere? Of course the countryside *looks* overpopulated once you have enclosed all the commons.
Basically, pre-enclosure England was barely able to support itself agriculturally. It was woefully inefficient. I don't claim that the enclosure act was wonderful for the displaced peasantry. Nor was it the only solution to agricultural inefficiency. But it was the path taken: and that was what freed up an army of urban labourers to man the industrial revolution.
Though it is worth pointing out that the enclosures had nothing to do with wanting to make agriculture more efficient per se. They were just a landgrab of the Commons by whoever had the ear of the Commissioners
Yes, though in fairness a fascist still celebrated by many nationalists (especially in the west of the country) as a great hero (cf. the "Commemoration" section of the wikipedia link cited by Malmesbury). The undoubted fact that the pro-Nazi (a reasonable description IMO) leaders were partly reacting to the Stalinist atrocities in the 30s doesn't excuse veneration of them in the current generation.
One can condemn the Russian invasion, support efforts by Ukraine to fight it off, and still be wary of aspects of the Ukrainian nationalist tradition, and it's understandable that the Germans are basically in that position. We need to penalise the invasion by helping to halt it (as has been largely done) and accepting Ukraine into the EU and possibly NATO (making a fresh attack suicidal for Russia). We don't need to help extend the conflict until the last nationalist claim (e.g. Crimea) is (re)captured.
Your regular reminder that Crimea, despite the claims of Fascist leader Putin, was in fact part of Ukraine until 1922 and again from 1954. The Russian nationalist claim to Crimea is far more manufactured than any Ukrainian one could be.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
I think the problem (if the transcript posted earlier on here is correct) comes from the fact that this wasn't just a question of a single or even once repeated question. It was a persistent refusal to understand that a non white person could be truly British. The 'what part of Africa' bit so late in the exchange was particularly egregious.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
I'd feel better about drawing the same conclusion if what we had was an actual transcript, rather than just a recollection of the conversation from one of the participants.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
UBI will reduce its recipients to zombie status.
Is that more or less of a zombie compared to working in a call centre?
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
UBI will reduce its recipients to zombie status.
Is that more or less of a zombie compared to working in a call centre?
A can of Pastel Pils brewed by Siren in Finchampstead in Berkshire. 4.8% ABV
Very refreshing after half a day’s knobsticking
Do I want to ask what knobsticking is?
Strike breaking
I thought being a knobstick sounded more fun than being a scab
I think we should all support the postal workers by refusing to accept any junk mail. If the postie won’t take it back, stuff it in the postbox marked “unwanted junk mail - return to sender”.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
I think the problem (if the transcript posted earlier on here is correct) comes from the fact that this wasn't just a question of a single or even once repeated question. It was a persistent refusal to understand that a non white person could be truly British. The 'what part of Africa' bit so late in the exchange was particularly egregious.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
As someone has pointed out, it's not a "transcript" (unless Ms Fulani was recording the conversation). That's precisely why I said it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said. We don't have that. We have one person's impression of the conversation from memory.
A can of Pastel Pils brewed by Siren in Finchampstead in Berkshire. 4.8% ABV
Very refreshing after half a day’s knobsticking
Do I want to ask what knobsticking is?
Strike breaking
I thought being a knobstick sounded more fun than being a scab
I think we should all support the postal workers by refusing to accept any junk mail. If the postie won’t take it back, stuff it in the postbox marked “unwanted junk mail - return to sender”.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
That and UBI aren't the only possibilities.
Agreed the across-the-board retraining won't happen.
As for UBI, the ruling class is not going to pay half of what was previously considered the working-age population to be completely unproductive of value. They won't put resources into advertising cr*p to them on their phones either, whether they give them the money to buy the cr*p or not.
They will kill them.
A lot of the displacement to use a euphemism won't even be AI-related. The huge over-employment in office work is already here, AI or no AI.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
I think the problem (if the transcript posted earlier on here is correct) comes from the fact that this wasn't just a question of a single or even once repeated question. It was a persistent refusal to understand that a non white person could be truly British. The 'what part of Africa' bit so late in the exchange was particularly egregious.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
As someone has pointed out, it's not a "transcript" (unless Ms Fulani was recording the conversation). That's precisely why I said it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said. We don't have that. We have one person's impression of the conversation from memory.
Two people, as the leader of the Womens Equality Party has backed her up.
I am more inclined to support Fulani than the Royals in this however I find the coverage increasingly more and more absurd.
This was the latest in The Guardian, and she was on TV making comments about the "non physical violence" of the discussion too.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
I think the problem (if the transcript posted earlier on here is correct) comes from the fact that this wasn't just a question of a single or even once repeated question. It was a persistent refusal to understand that a non white person could be truly British. The 'what part of Africa' bit so late in the exchange was particularly egregious.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
As someone has pointed out, it's not a "transcript" (unless Ms Fulani was recording the conversation). That's precisely why I said it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said. We don't have that. We have one person's impression of the conversation from memory.
Two people, as the leader of the Womens Equality Party has backed her up.
I am more inclined to support Fulani than the Royals in this however I find the coverage increasingly more and more absurd.
As far as I've read Mandu Reid's comments, she's corroborated the gist of the conversation but hasn't endorsed the recitation of the conversation as complete and accurate.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
And she was. And she has.
That doesn't necessarily preclude the media reaction being an overreaction.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
I think the problem (if the transcript posted earlier on here is correct) comes from the fact that this wasn't just a question of a single or even once repeated question. It was a persistent refusal to understand that a non white person could be truly British. The 'what part of Africa' bit so late in the exchange was particularly egregious.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
As someone has pointed out, it's not a "transcript" (unless Ms Fulani was recording the conversation). That's precisely why I said it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said. We don't have that. We have one person's impression of the conversation from memory.
Two people, as the leader of the Womens Equality Party has backed her up.
As I keep saying - but as you apparently completely missed - it depends on the exact words and the way in which they were said. Not on whether someone else who was present also felt offended but couldn't say exactly what had been said.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
And she was. And she has.
That doesn't necessarily preclude the media reaction being an overreaction.
It's not an overreaction. She was working in an official capacity representing the state.
And from the reports that have come out, it doesn't sound like this was a first offence.
And this is after years of concerns getting raised that aren't taken seriously.
Old person says something inappropriate in their living room, not an issue. Representatives of the state doing so in an official capacity, it is an issue.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
That and UBI aren't the only possibilities.
Agreed the across-the-board retraining won't happen.
As for UBI, the ruling class is not going to pay half of what was previously considered the working-age population to be completely unproductive of value. They won't put resources into advertising cr*p to them on their phones either, whether they give them the money to buy the cr*p or not.
They will kill them.
A lot of the displacement to use a euphemism won't even be AI-related. The huge over-employment in office work is already here, AI or no AI.
Governments will be elected to provide a UBI. The idea that the elite is going to engage in mass murder of half the population is a bit ludicrous given it could equally lead to a revolution and the guillotining of them!
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks.
Not quite what I had in mind when I asked for enlightenment. But to be fair I'm sure it offers some insight into the relevant thought processes.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
UBI will reduce its recipients to zombie status.
Is that more or less of a zombie compared to working in a call centre?
Indeed. We need a complete re-calibration of what work means. Creative work, community work, the 1960's idea of what life without drudgery in the future could be. It's also just a failure of imagination to believe some of that isn't possible, at least for some people. Others will be just as static and unproductive as they would have been in low-end jobs.
Facing up both to the realities and varieties of human nature, on the one hand, and moving beyond the incredible narrowness of what we still define as useful or worthy work , on the other, can be part of our process of maturation , as a society.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
Indeed, UBI is inevitable longer term funded by a robot tax on corporations if AI displaces lots of the workforce without enough new permanent jobs created to replace the ones lost
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks.
Not quite what I had in mind when I asked for enlightenment. But to be fair I'm sure it offers some insight into the relevant thought processes.
My apologies. I should have said that was the stupidest thing I have read today, but that's unsurprising with someone notoriously as thick as two short planks who reckons he's the smartest person in the room.
And then the rest of the post which explains why your stupidity was so imbecilic
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
That and UBI aren't the only possibilities.
Agreed the across-the-board retraining won't happen.
As for UBI, the ruling class is not going to pay half of what was previously considered the working-age population to be completely unproductive of value. They won't put resources into advertising cr*p to them on their phones either, whether they give them the money to buy the cr*p or not.
They will kill them.
A lot of the displacement to use a euphemism won't even be AI-related. The huge over-employment in office work is already here, AI or no AI.
Hmmmm
We have a Conservative government triple locking pensions and benefits - the core of what will become, eventually, UBI
The Labour Party is hardly likely to be less enthusiastic about benefits.
The Lib Dem’s, SNP, Greens etc don’t really seem like genocidal asshats, either.
Who exactly is the Kill The Poor party, and who is gong to do the killing?
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
Any studies yet into the rate of deception by those using self checkout? We've been forced to use them at the Uni CO-OP, and as a result I now will use them elsewhere. I would never deliberately steal anything but the temptation must be there for some people surely and I've never seen anyone get stopped and their shopping checked.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
I've really never understood the "taking jobs away from staff" thing. Even if it's true (and AFAIK there's little evidence of a direct link between the introduction of self checkouts (or order screens in takeaways) and reduction in staff numbers) it's rather irrelevant as businesses do not exist primarily to employ staff, they exist primarily to serve their customers.
I think the constant negative news and the disarray in the conservative party, parts of which seem to be pushing the self destruct button, adds to a near helplessness amongst most of us and acceptance of the increasingly likely majority Labour government in 2024
However, time for some good news with Ford announcement of investment into Halewood, the pound rising to £1.22, and Ursula von der Leyen announcing that discussion with Rishi Sunak over the NIP are going well and a workable solution is within reach
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
As AI gets more creative I guess there may be a re-evaluation of what creative means. I don't have a creative bone in my body, so I'm in no position to judge, but I'd certainly not want to have my fortunes tied to the value of today's top end artworks. Of course if AI ever reaches a stage of actual intelligence (a thing I think is probably centuries away) the the value will be anticipating what these new masters of our universe value!
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Ms Fulani isn't expressing herself with 100% precision and on-the-ballness, what with her usage of words such as "space" and "safe", but no victim ever has perfect control over exactly the right set of concepts and exactly the right method of conveying them and this is no excuse for Ms Hussey's behaviour.
Hussey probably does use "your people" and "your family" synonymously, but she meant not just family but ancestors. As I understand it, Fulani's parents were born in the West Indies and given that they came here in the 1950s they were presumably already British before they came here. Given Fulani's age it would be a good guess given that she is Black British that her parents were also British, and if someone thinks people born and raised in British-administered British colonies in the British West Indies who emigrated to Britain weren't British despite being entitled to British passports they can drop dead AFAIAC.
Why doesn't Hussey respond anyway, or is she too posh to say anything when criticised? Most who are interested in this story would be willing to listen to her point of view if she cared to express it.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
Any studies yet into the rate of deception by those using self checkout? We've been forced to use them at the Uni CO-OP, and as a result I now will use them elsewhere. I would never deliberately steal anything but the temptation must be there for some people surely and I've never seen anyone get stopped and their shopping checked.
I generally get checked about once a month - more in Tesco in November/December when they increase the percentage of random checks.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Interesting reading the RUSI report. It was Ukraine's won artillery, as much as anything we supplied, that allowed them to stop the initial Russian blitzkrieg in its tracks. But they were thereafter heavily dependent on western supplies.
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf ...Since March 2014, Ukraine has focused on recovering its artillery capabilities. As a result, five new artillery brigades and a separate artillery regiment of the Ground Forces were created, as well as one artillery brigade and a separate artillery regiment of the Navy. The 19th Separate Missile Brigade regenerated two additional battalions with tactical missile complex ‘Tochka-U’. All new combined arms brigades in the Ground Forces, as well as all brigades of the marines, received their own brigade artillery groups. By 2019, the number of artillery battalions had doubled. As of February 2022, the Missile Forces and Artillery (RViA) of the UAF had 10 brigades and one regiment as part of the Ground Forces, as well as one brigade and one regiment as part of the Navy. The UAF had 1,176 barrel artillery systems, of which 742 were 152-mm calibre systems, 421 were 122-mm howitzers, and 13 units were 203-mm systems. The RViA also fielded 1,680 MLRS of all calibres, as well as about 40 tactical missile systems ‘Tochka-U’. In terms of the number of artillery systems, Ukraine fielded the largest artillery force in Europe after Russia. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not so significant at the beginning of the conflict: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176, and 3,547 MLRS against 1,680. The UAF had ammunition to support these systems in high-intensity warfighting for just over six weeks. Ammunition had been depleted by regular explosions at Ukrainian arsenals as a result of Russian sabotage. From 2014 to 2018, there were six such explosions, which destroyed more than 210,000 tonnes of ammunition, a large part of which were 152-mm shells and rockets for MLRS. For comparison, during the five years of the war in Donbas, the UAF spent about 70,000 tons of ammunition in total..
I think the constant negative news and the disarray in the conservative party, parts of which seem to be pushing the self destruct button, adds to a near helplessness amongst most of us and acceptance of the increasingly likely majority Labour government in 2024
On the contrary, a lot of us, indeed a majority of the country, are quite chipper about a long period of the Tories being on the opposition benches.
It goes on... ...The development of Ukrainian artillery was not limited to increasing the number of artillery systems and units. A lot of effort was also put into qualitative improvement. Since 2015, all battalions began to receive UAVs ‘Furia’, ‘Leleka’, PD-1 and others, which significantly increased their ISR capabilities. US radars AN/TPQ-36, designed to determine the coordinates of enemy artillery, were transferred to Ukraine as part of US military-technical assistance and strengthened the capabilities for conducting counter-battery fire. The use of the ‘Kropyva’ combat control system – Ukrainian intelligent mapping software – saw an 80% reduction in the deployment time for artillery units. Simultaneously, the amount of time to destroy an unplanned target was reduced by two-thirds, and the time to open counter-battery fire by 90%. Special attention was paid to personnel training. Every year, the armed forces conducted more than 35 field brigade tactical exercises and more than 200 field battalion tactical exercises for artillery. Thus, Ukrainian defence plans aimed at using manoeuvre forces to fix and canalise attackers to enable their destruction by concentrated artillery fire....
I think the constant negative news and the disarray in the conservative party, parts of which seem to be pushing the self destruct button, adds to a near helplessness amongst most of us and acceptance of the increasingly likely majority Labour government in 2024
On the contrary, a lot of us, indeed a majority of the country, are quite chipper about a long period of the Tories being on the opposition benches.
You miss the point
I have little doubt Labour will win in 24 but that is not a reason to dismiss good news stories in these difficult times
You can tell Bulb is now run by the Govt as they have tried to put up our bills at both of our houses and in both cases have succeeded in getting less money. Quite an achievement.
On our 2nd home they tried to double the monthly DD even though we weren't using what we were currently paying for so I moved to paying for actual usage each month. As this is less than the £66 from the Govt we pay nothing every month and just build up a credit (My wife is going to donate it to charity as it is ludicrous we get this).
Our main house was hiked about a month ago to a ludicrous figure. Bulb lets you reduce that online provided you don't go below a certain minimum amount. So each time I reduce it to the minimum. They have now tried to hike it again, so I have gone in and reduced it to the new minimum which is lower than the old one. Consequently a £30 increase has become a £7 decrease. How does the minimum you pay go down if the recommended amount goes up?
I wonder if anyone is sitting there going 'every time we increase this guys bills we get less money'.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Ms Fulani isn't expressing herself with 100% precision and on-the-ballness, what with her usage of words such as "space" and "safe", but no victim ever has perfect control over exactly the right set of concepts and exactly the right method of conveying them and this is no excuse for Ms Hussey's behaviour.
Hussey probably does use "your people" and "your family" synonymously, but she meant not just family but ancestors. As I understand it, Fulani's parents were born in the West Indies and given that they came here in the 1950s they were presumably already British before they came here. Given Fulani's age it would be a good guess given that she is Black British that her parents were also British, and if someone thinks people born and raised in British-administered British colonies in the British West Indies who emigrated to Britain weren't British despite being entitled to British passports they can drop dead AFAIAC.
The "questioning my citizenship" stuff is entirely confected by Fulani.
I think the trouble is, Hussey was treating Fulani as an equal. If Fulani had said Spanish, she would come back with Do you know my great friend the Marques de Rioja? It's an unfortunate aberration of history that the closest link she could forge with Fulani's background is My family used to own yours.
The only live debate is what the jug eared adulterer thought he was doing putting her out to face the public.
Comments
Here's an idea - just cut out the middleman?
Or perhaps you want to build hundreds of sports facilities within the grounds of state schools, at vastly greater expense?
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
Edit: do you actually welcome this stuff, @Leon?
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
Spanish media reporting police presence at U.S. embassy in Madrid. Possible 6th letter bomb sent there after similar letters sent to Ukrainian embassy, the Spanish PM and other government/military sites in recent days.
https://twitter.com/SophGarratt/status/1598310544947249157
Conversely though - I wonder if the Tories in particular will struggle on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if they LDs do better than any Baxterisation suggests at this stage.
1992 L+6
1997 L+5
2001 L+6
2005 L+1
2010 L+1
2015 L+7
2017 L+14
2019 L+22
So it has always leaned Lab but has sharply moved away from the Cons in the last 2 elections.
Wirral W has trended heavily away from the Cons and is now a no hope seat:
1992 C+14
1997 C+7
2001 L+1
2005 Even
2010 L+1
2015 L+8
2017 L+14
2019 L+18
Weaver Vale was always strong for Lab but the Cons were helped by the 2010 boundary changes, which took out a Runcorn ward. It has now drifted away from the Cons again. Weaver Vale is planned to be abolished and will be split between a Runcorn seat (safe Lab) and a Mid Cheshire seat (Lab-leaning marginal)
1992
1997 L+15
2001 L+16
2005 L+14
2010 L+5
2015 L+5
2017 L+10
2019 L+12
Tories have been invisible which is surprising in a seat that has been a marginal up till quite recently. Tells us something I suppose.
Other than Labour I have seen about 3 Green Party posters and the Reform UK candidate had a stall in the centre a couple of Saturday's ago. Just her and no takers while I was walking around. One Tory. one Reform and one Rejoin EU leaflet all delivered by royal mail. About 6 from Labour, hand delivered, 1 Lib Dem hand delivered. Canvassed twice (both by Labour)
When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside.
What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
The first decades of the Industrial Revolution were pretty grim for a lot of people. The AI Revolution might be similar
That's a run rate of 5.55 rpo
England's today was 6.75 rpo, over 20% quicker
The ongoing information-based technological revolution is not akin to previous technological revolutions starting with the industrial revolution because there won't be a net increase in employment. It goes together with a mass cull the likes of which there's never been before. It's megadeath in a big string of 0s and 1s - death for millions, and death in the minds and active humanity of many individuals suffered to live too. The religion it brings is vile and says it all - humans as machines, when we are not machines. This is what that nutcase Turing meant when he wrote of machines "thinking".
One can condemn the Russian invasion, support efforts by Ukraine to fight it off, and still be wary of aspects of the Ukrainian nationalist tradition, and it's understandable that the Germans are basically in that position. We need to penalise the invasion by helping to halt it (as has been largely done) and accepting Ukraine into the EU and possibly NATO (making a fresh attack suicidal for Russia). We don't need to help extend the conflict until the last nationalist claim (e.g. Crimea) is (re)captured.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
The rural to urban shift of the early industrial revolution was driven, I think, more by rural overpopulation, leading to the need for land consolidation and the de-landing of rural smallholders.
Not an irrelevant comparison, however.
A can of Pastel Pils brewed by Siren in Finchampstead in Berkshire. 4.8% ABV
Very refreshing after half a day’s knobsticking
I thought being a knobstick sounded more fun than being a scab
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
Later during tractorisation the ex-farming labourers still went to industries and the cities. There was nowhere else they could go. Conditions there were certainly better in say 1930 than 1850, e.g. the number of hours worked per week had fallen as productivity rose, and in a country such as Britain people got Saturday afternoons off.
For a few generations now there has been insane over-employment in offices, which is to say managerialism and often what appears to be bullsh*t almost for the sake of bullsh*t. It's wasteful to an extreme and is unsustainable.
AI can increase productivity but not to the extent of preparing the way for creating large numbers of new real jobs actually making stuff. That would have to mean e.g. that most of us only wear a pair of shoes or use a set of chairs for a day before we throw them away - an increase in turnover and circulation that would be so extreme that it isn't going to happen. The info revolution means megadeath and its patron saint is Malthus.
I don't claim that the enclosure act was wonderful for the displaced peasantry. Nor was it the only solution to agricultural inefficiency. But it was the path taken: and that was what freed up an army of urban labourers to man the industrial revolution.
When I first heard the breaking news about this I thought exactly as you have. But I find it hard to justify that position once I read the transcript.
Agreed the across-the-board retraining won't happen.
As for UBI, the ruling class is not going to pay half of what was previously considered the working-age population to be completely unproductive of value. They won't put resources into advertising cr*p to them on their phones either, whether they give them the money to buy the cr*p or not.
They will kill them.
A lot of the displacement to use a euphemism won't even be AI-related. The huge over-employment in office work is already here, AI or no AI.
I am more inclined to support Fulani than the Royals in this however I find the coverage increasingly more and more absurd.
This was the latest in The Guardian, and she was on TV making comments about the "non physical violence" of the discussion too.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/01/buckingham-palace-encounter-with-susan-hussey-like-an-interrogation-says-charity-boss
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
That doesn't necessarily preclude the media reaction being an overreaction.
And from the reports that have come out, it doesn't sound like this was a first offence.
And this is after years of concerns getting raised that aren't taken seriously.
Old person says something inappropriate in their living room, not an issue. Representatives of the state doing so in an official capacity, it is an issue.
The 1930 World Cup was absolutely mental.
The refs wore suits, the Bolivians played in berets, and the Romanian team was selected by the King... and that's the tame stuff.
From premature funerals to managers knocked out with chloroform, here's a short history of the madness...
https://mobile.twitter.com/UpshotTowers/status/1597564819380621312
Facing up both to the realities and varieties of human nature, on the one hand, and moving beyond the incredible narrowness of what we still define as useful or worthy work , on the other, can be part of our process of maturation , as a society.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-ve-seen-the-future-of-ai-art-and-it-s-terrifying/
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
And then the rest of the post which explains why your stupidity was so imbecilic
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Let people have a choice.
Solovyev predicts Germany, France, Belgium and other European countries can have religious wars.
At least it's something new.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1597960821447217153
We have a Conservative government triple locking pensions and benefits - the core of what will become, eventually, UBI
The Labour Party is hardly likely to be less enthusiastic about benefits.
The Lib Dem’s, SNP, Greens etc don’t really seem like genocidal asshats, either.
Who exactly is the Kill The Poor party, and who is gong to do the killing?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
This is only going one way ...
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1598214061430292481
Pentagon awards Raytheon Technologies Co $1.2 bln contract to produce NASAMS for Ukraine
Work's estimated completion date is 28 November 2025. Reuters says Raytheon is going to manufacture six NASAMS air defense systems for Ukraine.
I pointed out that within 200 years, people will miss the point and start killing each other over the difference between tagliatelle and penne
I think the constant negative news and the disarray in the conservative party, parts of which seem to be pushing the self destruct button, adds to a near helplessness amongst most of us and acceptance of the increasingly likely majority Labour government in 2024
However, time for some good news with Ford announcement of investment into Halewood, the pound rising to £1.22, and Ursula von der Leyen announcing that discussion with Rishi Sunak over the NIP are going well and a workable solution is within reach
BBC News - Ford reveals £125m Halewood electric vehicle parts plant boost
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63820136
Hussey probably does use "your people" and "your family" synonymously, but she meant not just family but ancestors. As I understand it, Fulani's parents were born in the West Indies and given that they came here in the 1950s they were presumably already British before they came here. Given Fulani's age it would be a good guess given that she is Black British that her parents were also British, and if someone thinks people born and raised in British-administered British colonies in the British West Indies who emigrated to Britain weren't British despite being entitled to British passports they can drop dead AFAIAC.
Why doesn't Hussey respond anyway, or is she too posh to say anything when criticised? Most who are interested in this story would be willing to listen to her point of view if she cared to express it.
It was Ukraine's won artillery, as much as anything we supplied, that allowed them to stop the initial Russian blitzkrieg in its tracks.
But they were thereafter heavily dependent on western supplies.
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf
...Since March 2014, Ukraine has focused on recovering its artillery capabilities. As a result, five new artillery brigades and a separate artillery regiment of the Ground Forces were created, as well as one artillery brigade and a separate artillery regiment of the Navy. The 19th Separate Missile Brigade regenerated two additional battalions with tactical missile complex ‘Tochka-U’. All new combined arms brigades in the Ground Forces, as well as all brigades of the marines, received their own brigade artillery groups. By 2019, the number of artillery battalions had doubled. As of February 2022, the Missile Forces and Artillery (RViA) of the UAF had 10 brigades and one regiment as part of the Ground Forces, as well as one brigade and one regiment as part of the Navy. The UAF had 1,176 barrel artillery systems, of which 742 were 152-mm calibre systems, 421 were 122-mm howitzers, and 13 units were 203-mm systems. The RViA also fielded 1,680 MLRS of all calibres, as well as about 40 tactical missile systems ‘Tochka-U’. In terms of the number of artillery systems, Ukraine fielded the largest artillery force in Europe after Russia. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not so significant at the beginning of the conflict: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176, and 3,547 MLRS against 1,680.
The UAF had ammunition to support these systems in high-intensity warfighting for just over six weeks. Ammunition had been depleted by regular explosions at Ukrainian arsenals as a result of Russian sabotage. From 2014 to 2018, there were six such explosions, which destroyed more than 210,000 tonnes of ammunition, a large part of which were 152-mm shells and rockets for MLRS. For comparison, during the five years of the war in Donbas, the UAF spent about 70,000 tons of ammunition in total..
...The development of Ukrainian artillery was not limited to increasing the number of artillery systems and units. A lot of effort was also put into qualitative improvement. Since 2015, all battalions began to receive UAVs ‘Furia’, ‘Leleka’, PD-1 and others, which significantly increased their ISR capabilities. US radars AN/TPQ-36, designed to determine the coordinates of enemy artillery, were transferred to Ukraine as part of US military-technical assistance and strengthened the capabilities for conducting counter-battery fire. The use of the ‘Kropyva’ combat control system – Ukrainian intelligent mapping software – saw an 80% reduction in the deployment time for artillery units. Simultaneously, the amount of time to destroy an unplanned target was reduced by two-thirds, and the time to open counter-battery fire by 90%. Special attention was paid to personnel training. Every year, the armed forces conducted more than 35 field brigade tactical exercises and more than 200 field battalion tactical exercises for artillery. Thus, Ukrainian defence plans aimed at using manoeuvre forces to fix and canalise attackers to enable their destruction by concentrated artillery fire....
https://twitter.com/Bogdan_Voron/status/1598338134017810432/photo/1
At least one every day til Christmas. Some days have four or five
Via @EamonFarhat @elashton
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-01/britain-facing-strikes-every-day-from-now-until-christmas https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1598337957781553155/photo/1
I have little doubt Labour will win in 24 but that is not a reason to dismiss good news stories in these difficult times
On our 2nd home they tried to double the monthly DD even though we weren't using what we were currently paying for so I moved to paying for actual usage each month. As this is less than the £66 from the Govt we pay nothing every month and just build up a credit (My wife is going to donate it to charity as it is ludicrous we get this).
Our main house was hiked about a month ago to a ludicrous figure. Bulb lets you reduce that online provided you don't go below a certain minimum amount. So each time I reduce it to the minimum. They have now tried to hike it again, so I have gone in and reduced it to the new minimum which is lower than the old one. Consequently a £30 increase has become a £7 decrease. How does the minimum you pay go down if the recommended amount goes up?
I wonder if anyone is sitting there going 'every time we increase this guys bills we get less money'.
I think the trouble is, Hussey was treating Fulani as an equal. If Fulani had said Spanish, she would come back with Do you know my great friend the Marques de Rioja? It's an unfortunate aberration of history that the closest link she could forge with Fulani's background is My family used to own yours.
The only live debate is what the jug eared adulterer thought he was doing putting her out to face the public.