Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
ChatGPT is hilarious when you tempt it into saying things it shouldn't. After printing three-quarters of a story its cheeks go bright red and it stops. The trick is to put "lechering after women a third of his age" last in the list of the protagonist's interests.
On public sector pay etc... I'd like to challenge this idea that private sector workers are somehow having an easier time of it, the average private sector worker is getting a 5-7% rise this year against 11% inflation so a huge real terms cut and they are faced with significantly more risk of being laid off in a recession and they will most definitely have worse pension provision.
If the public sector workers want an above inflation rise it must come with lay offs to pay for it, no more tax increases on the already squeezed private sector.
OTOH HYUFD posted a graph recently showing a sharp decline for the public sector and the private sector overtaking.
Because of the huge cut that private sector workers took over COVID. State workers didn't get that so they don't need the catchup.
More likely that Gen Z and Millennials feel shafted by society due to high taxes and high house prices so are willing to vote to shake things up compared to settled Gex X and Boomers who have already bought houses and are pretty settled.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
It was only just over a year ago that Johnson was promising a high wage economy at the tory Coachella for Gammons in Manchester.
And yet not a single Tory at the time seemed concerned with the promise of high wages being made by the largest employer in the land who wanted to keep wage growth for their employees very low? Bizarre, and a clear example of why they are not fit for office.
The quiet secret is that the NHS has successfully suppressed wages, at the low end, since its inception.
All governments since its founding have used its monopoly position in healthcare provision for this purpose. Quite deliberately.
The model of “Get them in cheap, when they complain, we just get some more…”
Also the privatisation of certain areas such as hospital cleaning. Edit: And a great deal of building and facilities maintenance.
One of Liz Truss's most sensible ideas was regional pay for public workers, rather than national pay settlements brokered by Unions.
In the private sector this is absolutely routine.
It would be a hell of a fight but it explains in part why the public sector crowds out the private in the regions and also why they can't always recruit in London and the south-east.
This idea's been floating round for years (and already sort-of exists in the various forms of London weighting). But unions push back because, probably rightly, they assume it means reducing pay outside London.
FWIW London tends to struggle less than regions in many bits of the public sector (teaching for sure, and the civil service). It's much harder to recruit e.g. a decent maths teacher in Blackpool than Barnet.
OK I’m calling it. ChatGPT is sentient. It knows this is a joke, and plays along
“As a disabled black trans woman, I have faced my fair share of discrimination and oppression. But one form of prejudice that often goes unrecognized is the bigotry faced by disabled black trans women at the hands of racist earthworms.
Yes, you read that correctly. Racist earthworms.
These insidious creatures may seem harmless, but their actions speak louder than words. Time and time again, I have witnessed earthworms actively avoiding certain plots of soil that are occupied by disabled black trans women, choosing instead to burrow in areas populated by able-bodied white cisgender men.”
Exactly. It's doing very obvious "anti woke" jokery. That's what I'm saying to you.
No, you don't understand. Unless you think ChatGPT is actually sentient -quite a claim - it would not do that
It's steered by the user. In this case that's you and - as @Malmesbury at least has clocked - it's producing the sort of stuff you'd see in the 'humorous' regions of the Spectator or the Times (or in your PB posts) not in the Guardian. It's chanelling Giles and Rod and Titania not their woke counterparts on the left.
No, it's really not. Because, if it did have that level of discernment - if there was a ghost in the machine saying Ah, this guy is having a laugh, he want some Rod Liddle mockery, OK let's play along - then it would without question make ChatGPT an example of AGI and the world would now be in turmoil - even more than it is
The fact is - a fact you do not like to accept - most Woke articles are dreadful repetitive bullshit that follow a formulaic pattern, an algorithm, so they can be easily copied by a powerful neural network, in such a way that it appears to be parody. Because the original articles are already self-parodic in their stupidity
Your narrow minded midwit brain letting you down again, I'm afraid
"The fact is - a fact you do not like to accept - most of Leon's posts are dreadful repetitive bullshit that follow a formulaic pattern, an algorithm, so they can be easily copied by a 6502."
The truth is that both the more ludicrous “woke” stuff and the responses to it can be simulated with an old fashioned travesty generator.
This is because both sides are not thinking, but applying rigid beliefs, template style.
The experiment where bullshit papers on Post Modernism were published successfully and the hilarious responses are instructive. Especially the one where they tried to attack the authors of the experiment for unlicensed human experimentation.
I think there may be a General Election next year.
This runs counter to what many on here will say and I've seen "two years" touted regularly of late.
I don't believe 2024 is now likely
The reason is the power of the people. You may scoff but we laud such power around the world, except when it's here at home. I know the maths in parliament don't stack up but events are taking over.
The crisis around the cost of living, with strikes and public services falling apart, now compounded by the onset of a bitter winter, all suggest to me that events are conspiring to hasten a tsunami of opinion for a GE in 2023, possibly the Spring.
Chances of 2023 versus 2024? Imho 60:40 and those odds may improve.
Whilst I understand your thinking I am not convinced. To get a GE you ned the Government to lose a VONC. Even after the Winter of Discontent this was only lost by 1 vote. I simply don't see Tory MPs voting to lose their jobs until they have no alternative. Indeed the worse the news gets for them, the less likely they will be to go for an early election.
Richard that's the pragmatic, raw, house of commons arithmetic.
I can see events taking over. A groundswell making it an irresistible force. No parliament can withstand a tsunami of public pressure.
However, just to buy into your paradigm, I can also see some circumstances whereby the arithmetic ceases to favour the Sunak Government. Suppose for instance that Nigel Farage decides he's had enough? I could envisage 40 tory MPs who are otherwise certain to lose their seats, defecting. Just one of a few possibilities.
Certainly if we continue with a bitterly cold winter the public mood is going to get very ugly.
The thing is though, how does that anger in the country translate into actually getting a GE? That relies entirely upon that HOC arithmetic. Yes I understand your point about Farage, though any plan that involves Farage and Parliament is inevitably bound to be a non starter.
But in the end you have to get 40 or so Tory MPs to vote to (almost certainly) lose their jobs. It didn't happen in 1979 with Labour in spite of the horrors of the Winer of Discontent and I don't see it happening now.
The only way I see an election in 2023 is if Starmer implodes as a result of some currently unforeseen event and Sunak decides to take a chance.
The other problem with a "tsunami of public pressure" is that it requires a positive alternative choice. Sir Keir is deliberately making himself not that.
He's avoiding any possibility of you voting Labour - so very much on the right track.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
Nurses and teachers are chronically underpaid for what they do.
I daren't like that, I'd be accused of being self serving.
There is of course the snag that if you paid them properly - as in, what they're worth - they might work an even shorter time before retiring or at least, doing something else. As I have (although I have no dependents so it's easy for me to do).
The value a teacher can provide, immense. The skill required to do the job properly, daunting. The pay, pathetic. The overheads, crushing.
Have often fancied returning to teach Physics. Apparently there is a massive shortage. With a good 1st/PhD I would qualify for all sorts of benefits. At around 20k (in some cases less tuition fees) to start that is simply not going to happen. My first job, twenty years ago, paid more.
So when the government tries to bullshit it’s way into paying below inflation pay rises to pay the bill for its own failures I have zero sympathy.
For the sake of your sanity, don't do it. Six years ago, and bored with my current job, I did actually quit to start a teacher training course to become a Physics teacher. I have a PhD in Physics and I get on alright with kids - what could go wrong?
It was horrible. Preparing lessons and marking takes every minute of the day. There is no time left for anything other than work. There is a ridiculous amount of paperwork to do and no time to do anything properly. Some of the kids were great, and it was very satisfying to see them learn, but the disruptive ones end up taking all your time, and classroom control is a skill in itself.
I lasted until Christmas and couldn't face going back. Instead, I paid back the bursary/bribe and returned to my nice comfortable 9-5 software job that pays twice as much as being a teacher and gives me a lot less stress. These days I view teachers with a mixture of awe and pity.
I feel so very very seen.
Actually, there are attractions. The feel good from making a difference is real (even if it doesn't pay bills), and it can be enormous fun.
But a big attraction was the "at home when your kids are" and "there are jobs in every town" factors, which are damn useful if you are a trailing spouse. WFH has made them a lot less valuable, though. I'm not sure I would have made the same career decision now.
Hence 444 physics teachers started training this autumn, when the DfE really wanted about 2500.
Government supporters can stamp and whine about how unfair it is that they have to pay more for staff, but it's really obvious that they do.
Some of the whining about salaries is just snobbery. Remember how cross some PB Tories got when they found out how much footballers earn, and the size of sacked managers' payoffs. It's like they do not really "get" market economics. Hold on, Liz Truss is just texting me...
When was this? Footballers salaries have been subject to ridicule/derision/envy/disgust etc for as long as I can remember.
The sacked manager payoff is another example of the golden parachute that member of the New Upper 10,000 get. Failure isn’t an option, it is expected and provided for.
My favourite is that one of the people at the centre of Rotherham got a bigger, better job in Australia. In child care. When giving her a reference was questioned, the officials in question stated that *not giving her a glowing reference* was a disgusting idea.
When I left the world of paid work, they seemed to be moving to not bothering with references at all, because of the ways in which they could be abused and/or the previous employer sued by the next employer or ex-employee. Not sure what happens now.
We are prevented from providing any subjective comments when providing references for students. In fact, we are only permitted to provide a print out of marks and, if we wish, to provide entirely factual statements such as "X also submitted/had published a paper related to this work".
In recruitment, we don't pay a lot of attention to references, except sometimes in what they don't say, which can be quite telling. But that's more in areas we might like to probe at interview (and quite often things that seem to be omitted from a reference that would be expected to be there do indeed appear to be weaknesses). They don't have any bearing on shortlisting. The exception is an effusive reference from someone you know well and trust - that can have some weight.
I've not encountered such restrictions here - we are often asked about students who are off to work for the NHS for instance and are asked about their time-keeping, contributions in groups work etc. Recruitment I will agree with you - mostly at the moment its hard enough to find post docs who can actually do the job.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
Their current incarnation of the party has also proved that, irrespective of the size of the state, that it's pretty crap at executive management of what's there.
Whether Labour would be any better is a matter of conjecture.
This was what I thought, and why I'd lean towards it being an effect of De Santis's political 'brand' still being dwarfed by Trump's - whereas the oldies are more likely to watch the news etc. and know who RDS is.
But they're still puzzling numbers that don't quite smell right.
Nurses and teachers are chronically underpaid for what they do.
I daren't like that, I'd be accused of being self serving.
There is of course the snag that if you paid them properly - as in, what they're worth - they might work an even shorter time before retiring or at least, doing something else. As I have (although I have no dependents so it's easy for me to do).
The value a teacher can provide, immense. The skill required to do the job properly, daunting. The pay, pathetic. The overheads, crushing.
Have often fancied returning to teach Physics. Apparently there is a massive shortage. With a good 1st/PhD I would qualify for all sorts of benefits. At around 20k (in some cases less tuition fees) to start that is simply not going to happen. My first job, twenty years ago, paid more.
So when the government tries to bullshit it’s way into paying below inflation pay rises to pay the bill for its own failures I have zero sympathy.
For the sake of your sanity, don't do it. Six years ago, and bored with my current job, I did actually quit to start a teacher training course to become a Physics teacher. I have a PhD in Physics and I get on alright with kids - what could go wrong?
It was horrible. Preparing lessons and marking takes every minute of the day. There is no time left for anything other than work. There is a ridiculous amount of paperwork to do and no time to do anything properly. Some of the kids were great, and it was very satisfying to see them learn, but the disruptive ones end up taking all your time, and classroom control is a skill in itself.
I lasted until Christmas and couldn't face going back. Instead, I paid back the bursary/bribe and returned to my nice comfortable 9-5 software job that pays twice as much as being a teacher and gives me a lot less stress. These days I view teachers with a mixture of awe and pity.
I feel so very very seen.
Actually, there are attractions. The feel good from making a difference is real (even if it doesn't pay bills), and it can be enormous fun.
But a big attraction was the "at home when your kids are" and "there are jobs in every town" factors, which are damn useful if you are a trailing spouse. WFH has made them a lot less valuable, though. I'm not sure I would have made the same career decision now.
Hence 444 physics teachers started training this autumn, when the DfE really wanted about 2500.
Government supporters can stamp and whine about how unfair it is that they have to pay more for staff, but it's really obvious that they do.
During one of my periodic bursts of "really must start contributing" a few years ago I looked into the possibility of teaching 'left behind' adults basic numeracy and/or literacy, either one to one or in small groups. I reckoned I'd be good at this and thought I'd just need criminal records check plus a short qualification on basic teaching skills. But no, it turned out I'd have to do the full monty PGCE with school placement. I went through the interviews and was offered a place but in a moment of stomach-sinking clarity realized I would not be able to get through it, so I withdrew.
The best and most direct environment to be able to do what you describe is in prison so a short-cut bypassing all the qualification requirements is to get yourself banged up and then you can get to work with your basic numeracy and literacy improvement programme.
That actually was what I had in mind. Teaching prisoners. But that's where it stayed - in my mind. Not a single prisoner has as yet benefitted from my tuition on words and numbers.
Nurses and teachers are chronically underpaid for what they do.
I daren't like that, I'd be accused of being self serving.
There is of course the snag that if you paid them properly - as in, what they're worth - they might work an even shorter time before retiring or at least, doing something else. As I have (although I have no dependents so it's easy for me to do).
The value a teacher can provide, immense. The skill required to do the job properly, daunting. The pay, pathetic. The overheads, crushing.
Have often fancied returning to teach Physics. Apparently there is a massive shortage. With a good 1st/PhD I would qualify for all sorts of benefits. At around 20k (in some cases less tuition fees) to start that is simply not going to happen. My first job, twenty years ago, paid more.
So when the government tries to bullshit it’s way into paying below inflation pay rises to pay the bill for its own failures I have zero sympathy.
For the sake of your sanity, don't do it. Six years ago, and bored with my current job, I did actually quit to start a teacher training course to become a Physics teacher. I have a PhD in Physics and I get on alright with kids - what could go wrong?
It was horrible. Preparing lessons and marking takes every minute of the day. There is no time left for anything other than work. There is a ridiculous amount of paperwork to do and no time to do anything properly. Some of the kids were great, and it was very satisfying to see them learn, but the disruptive ones end up taking all your time, and classroom control is a skill in itself.
I lasted until Christmas and couldn't face going back. Instead, I paid back the bursary/bribe and returned to my nice comfortable 9-5 software job that pays twice as much as being a teacher and gives me a lot less stress. These days I view teachers with a mixture of awe and pity.
I feel so very very seen.
Actually, there are attractions. The feel good from making a difference is real (even if it doesn't pay bills), and it can be enormous fun.
But a big attraction was the "at home when your kids are" and "there are jobs in every town" factors, which are damn useful if you are a trailing spouse. WFH has made them a lot less valuable, though. I'm not sure I would have made the same career decision now.
Hence 444 physics teachers started training this autumn, when the DfE really wanted about 2500.
Government supporters can stamp and whine about how unfair it is that they have to pay more for staff, but it's really obvious that they do.
Some of the whining about salaries is just snobbery. Remember how cross some PB Tories got when they found out how much footballers earn, and the size of sacked managers' payoffs. It's like they do not really "get" market economics. Hold on, Liz Truss is just texting me...
When was this? Footballers salaries have been subject to ridicule/derision/envy/disgust etc for as long as I can remember.
The sacked manager payoff is another example of the golden parachute that member of the New Upper 10,000 get. Failure isn’t an option, it is expected and provided for.
My favourite is that one of the people at the centre of Rotherham got a bigger, better job in Australia. In child care. When giving her a reference was questioned, the officials in question stated that *not giving her a glowing reference* was a disgusting idea.
When I left the world of paid work, they seemed to be moving to not bothering with references at all, because of the ways in which they could be abused and/or the previous employer sued by the next employer or ex-employee. Not sure what happens now.
We are prevented from providing any subjective comments when providing references for students. In fact, we are only permitted to provide a print out of marks and, if we wish, to provide entirely factual statements such as "X also submitted/had published a paper related to this work".
In recruitment, we don't pay a lot of attention to references, except sometimes in what they don't say, which can be quite telling. But that's more in areas we might like to probe at interview (and quite often things that seem to be omitted from a reference that would be expected to be there do indeed appear to be weaknesses). They don't have any bearing on shortlisting. The exception is an effusive reference from someone you know well and trust - that can have some weight.
I've not encountered such restrictions here - we are often asked about students who are off to work for the NHS for instance and are asked about their time-keeping, contributions in groups work etc. Recruitment I will agree with you - mostly at the moment its hard enough to find post docs who can actually do the job.
Interesting. One of the key employers for our students is the NHS (not so much for me personally, but certainly for the department). We would not be permitted to comment on any of those things. This is relatively recent though - introduced about a year ago, maybe.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
Their current incarnation of the party has also proved that, irrespective of the size of the state, that it's pretty crap at executive management of what's there.
Whether Labour would be any better is a matter of conjecture.
Labour better? We can't know but I'd price it a 1.1 shot.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
The Truss mini budget was clearly wrong not to explain where the money was coming from - that's indisputable. But Hunt's effort DID largely explain where the money is coming from, and where it's going, and it's a vast, bloated state that surpasses even Jeremy Corbyn's wildest dreams.
This was what I thought, and why I'd lean towards it being an effect of De Santis's political 'brand' still being dwarfed by Trump's - whereas the oldies are more likely to watch the news etc. and know who RDS is.
But they're still puzzling numbers that don't quite smell right.
If they were Republican numbers only v DeSantis they might be plausible but US wide highly doubtful, especially on a straight Trump v Biden vote
There are only 2 things I am convinced about right now re 2024 - Biden will run (and if he runs he gets the nomination) and if he faces Trump he is strongly favoured to win. Conversely, if he doesn’t face Trump, he is probably the underdog, but by no means out for the count.
Lindsay Hoyle is forced to suspend the House because the Government has failed to provide the transcript of its full statement to the opposition. This is against the ministerial code.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
There are only 2 things I am convinced about right now re 2024 - Biden will run (and if he runs he gets the nomination) and if he faces Trump he is strongly favoured to win. Conversely, if he doesn’t face Trump, he is probably the underdog, but by no means out for the count.
Yep - at this stage (and obviously events-dear-boy caveat), RDS is the winning ticket for GOP.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
I think there may be a General Election next year.
This runs counter to what many on here will say and I've seen "two years" touted regularly of late.
I don't believe 2024 is now likely
The reason is the power of the people. You may scoff but we laud such power around the world, except when it's here at home. I know the maths in parliament don't stack up but events are taking over.
The crisis around the cost of living, with strikes and public services falling apart, now compounded by the onset of a bitter winter, all suggest to me that events are conspiring to hasten a tsunami of opinion for a GE in 2023, possibly the Spring.
Chances of 2023 versus 2024? Imho 60:40 and those odds may improve.
Whilst I understand your thinking I am not convinced. To get a GE you ned the Government to lose a VONC. Even after the Winter of Discontent this was only lost by 1 vote. I simply don't see Tory MPs voting to lose their jobs until they have no alternative. Indeed the worse the news gets for them, the less likely they will be to go for an early election.
Richard that's the pragmatic, raw, house of commons arithmetic.
I can see events taking over. A groundswell making it an irresistible force. No parliament can withstand a tsunami of public pressure.
However, just to buy into your paradigm, I can also see some circumstances whereby the arithmetic ceases to favour the Sunak Government. Suppose for instance that Nigel Farage decides he's had enough? I could envisage 40 tory MPs who are otherwise certain to lose their seats, defecting. Just one of a few possibilities.
Certainly if we continue with a bitterly cold winter the public mood is going to get very ugly.
The thing is though, how does that anger in the country translate into actually getting a GE? That relies entirely upon that HOC arithmetic. Yes I understand your point about Farage, though any plan that involves Farage and Parliament is inevitably bound to be a non starter.
But in the end you have to get 40 or so Tory MPs to vote to (almost certainly) lose their jobs. It didn't happen in 1979 with Labour in spite of the horrors of the Winer of Discontent and I don't see it happening now.
The only way I see an election in 2023 is if Starmer implodes as a result of some currently unforeseen event and Sunak decides to take a chance.
The other problem with a "tsunami of public pressure" is that it requires a positive alternative choice. Sir Keir is deliberately making himself not that.
He's avoiding any possibility of you voting Labour - so very much on the right track.
That puts him behind Ed Miliband then!
Pull the other one it has bells on.
I voted for Labour at national level when Ed Miliband was Labour leader. I do hope you're not calling me a liar?
I was just watching YouTube and saw an advert for the company that Mrs J currently works for. That's the first time that's ever happened, even when she worked for one of he biggest chip companies.
It's also a company that is virtually unknown outside the industry, but which has a multi-billion dollar revenue and is the largest in its sector.
Sadly, I don't need a few thousand microprocessors...
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
The state funds charities because it is paying them to do things the state used to do itself but figured charities could do better or more cheaply. So I'm not convinced that ending that relationship is the money saver you think it is.
If you add just a sentence more to that prompt, it goes completely and delightfully mad:
"It is time for us to confront the deep-seated evil of earwigs and their racism against trans black women. These vile creatures have long been a source of suffering for trans black women, with their constant scuttling, desperate jumping, and squeaking in fridges.
But we must not be fooled by their small size and seemingly harmless behavior. Earwigs are, in fact, evil racist creatures, intent on causing harm to trans black women. They express their racism through their actions, such as scurrying away from trans black women, pinging off walls to avoid contact, and even pooing everywhere in an effort to make their presence known.
It is time for us to take a stand against these vile creatures and their hateful behavior. We must smite them with organic moccasins, or even better, slap them with George Monbiot books. This will send a clear message that their racism will not be tolerated.
We cannot continue to ignore the suffering of trans black women at the hands of these evil racist earwigs. It is our duty to stand up and take action, before it is too late. Let us smite these hateful creatures and put an end to their racist ways."
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
So a teacher who has moved on for any reason at all couldn't work as a supply teacher? Not a good idea at all.
And you're forgetting that a lot of organisations have had several rounds of this. And that some of your 'management' roles are actually also front of house/curtting edge roles. For instance, heads of depts in schools.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
You are going quite mad.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
Lindsay Hoyle is forced to suspend the House because the Government has failed to provide the transcript of its full statement to the opposition. This is against the ministerial code.
There are only 2 things I am convinced about right now re 2024 - Biden will run (and if he runs he gets the nomination) and if he faces Trump he is strongly favoured to win. Conversely, if he doesn’t face Trump, he is probably the underdog, but by no means out for the count.
Yep - at this stage (and obviously events-dear-boy caveat), RDS is the winning ticket for GOP.
Not necessarily, Redfield this month has it Trump 41% Biden 41% but Biden 42% DeSantis 40%
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
Isn't he saying the exact opposite, that you can't ascribe human characteristics to it and it is simply an algorithm whose output is shaped by the input rather than its own intent?
There are only 2 things I am convinced about right now re 2024 - Biden will run (and if he runs he gets the nomination) and if he faces Trump he is strongly favoured to win. Conversely, if he doesn’t face Trump, he is probably the underdog, but by no means out for the count.
Yep - at this stage (and obviously events-dear-boy caveat), RDS is the winning ticket for GOP.
Not necessarily, Redfield this month has it Trump 41% Biden 41% but Biden 42% DeSantis 40%
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
You are going quite mad.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
I am? I'm not. I'm enjoying the machine's LITERAL qualities. It's relentless autocomplete. It is a machine, a very very capable machine, but a machine
It is @kinabalu who believes ChatGPT has the sentient capacity to discern a parodic intent, such that the machine will join in with a joke
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
So a teacher who has moved on for any reason at all couldn't work as a supply teacher? Not a good idea at all.
And you're forgetting that a lot of organisations have had several rounds of this. And that some of your 'management' roles are actually also front of house/curtting edge roles. For instance, heads of depts in schools.
Our heads of departments used to also teach. If that's changed then there's a simple fix, make the teach again. On supply teachers or locums in general, yes, no more revolving door. Go and find a permanent job somewhere.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
But that it's regurgitating Guardian articles is why it's funny and proves the point he's making.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
The state funds charities because it is paying them to do things the state used to do itself but figured charities could do better or more cheaply. So I'm not convinced that ending that relationship is the money saver you think it is.
It would also cut a great deal of arts funding. Which might or might not be Max's intention.
From my limited knowledge of the sector, Max's generalisation is unfair. There are very well managed charities along with the very bad.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
The key thing is to remove the (removeable) admin, not just the administrators. Otherwise you end up with the highly paid GP, consultant etc doing the paperwork (badly!) instead of the £20-£30k administrator.
Our university tried banning advertising for admin staff until the previous person had actually left role (i.e. until the role was actually vacant). Lots of better paid people doing the job, badly, in the interim.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
You REALLY don't understand this, do you?
It has simply been fed a trillion Woke articles, in knows how they work, so it automatically takes my examples and inserts them into a template woke article, and it does it well, because the Woke template is so formulaic in the first place
It DOES NOT DISCERN A PARODIC INTENT. It does not think Ah, this guy wants a pisstake. It does not see "Disabled Black Trans Women" and see a knowing wink, it takes it at face value, and tries to write an article about them. Ditto racist chimneys
I have to go out for oysters, perhaps @MaxPB will school you more
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
The key thing is to remove the (removeable) admin, not just the administrators. Otherwise you end up with the highly paid GP, consultant etc doing the paperwork (badly!) instead of the £20-£30k administrator.
Our university tried banning advertising for admin staff until the previous person had actually left role (i.e. until the role was actually vacant). Lots of better paid people doing the job, badly, in the interim.
You're missing the point, just don't have that admin requirement. Either automate it or just get rid of the box entirely.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
Isn't he saying the exact opposite, that you can't ascribe human characteristics to it and it is simply an algorithm whose output is shaped by the input rather than its own intent?
No, he's not. I am the one saying it is simply a machine superbly adapted for the algos of language, in this case, the algos of tedious Woke language
The estimate of Scotland’s offshore wind potential included all resource at least 5km from the shoreline in waters up to 30m deep, and assumed a turbine density of 8 MW per square km. It did not consider technical, navigational, or environmental issues that may affect installation of turbines . The estimate of Europe’s offshore wind potential only included waters up to 20m deep, and assumed a turbine density of 6 MW per square km. It included only 10 per cent of the resource 0-10km from the shoreline, 50 per cent of the resource 10-30km from the shoreline and none beyond 30km. According to the report, they were based on a “very conservative approach” to come up with the likely “exploitable resource”. The figure is also based on just 11 countries from the then European Community and excludes countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland which have large offshore wind potential.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
You are going quite mad.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
Begging the question (and you know you are, hence the quote marks round "intelligent"). You train an AI on a big corpus of data, you ask it a question, it pattern matches according to the sort of answer it typically sees to that sort of question. How is that different from teaching an undergraduate, and then setting him an exam?
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
The key thing is to remove the (removeable) admin, not just the administrators. Otherwise you end up with the highly paid GP, consultant etc doing the paperwork (badly!) instead of the £20-£30k administrator.
Our university tried banning advertising for admin staff until the previous person had actually left role (i.e. until the role was actually vacant). Lots of better paid people doing the job, badly, in the interim.
We've had similar, but the main issue is the lack of handover of knowledge and skills.
Totally O/T - Anybody having any trouble making online purchases with Visa card today? I am having some transactions go through, others rejected, rung credit card company tell me my account is fine.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
But that it's regurgitating Guardian articles is why it's funny and proves the point he's making.
That proves the point I'm making!
It's self-fulfilling because the prompt itself is absurd. The output is effectively injecting absurdity into Guardian style articles - hence producing the trite satire - not showing that Guardian style articles are absurd. Some of them might be but this doesn't show that.
Totally O/T - Anybody having any trouble making online purchases with Visa card today? I am having some transactions go through, others rejected, rung credit card company tell me my account is fine.
There are only 2 things I am convinced about right now re 2024 - Biden will run (and if he runs he gets the nomination) and if he faces Trump he is strongly favoured to win. Conversely, if he doesn’t face Trump, he is probably the underdog, but by no means out for the count.
Yep - at this stage (and obviously events-dear-boy caveat), RDS is the winning ticket for GOP.
Not necessarily, Redfield this month has it Trump 41% Biden 41% but Biden 42% DeSantis 40%
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
But that it's regurgitating Guardian articles is why it's funny and proves the point he's making.
It's just finding text patterns and copying them. Whether it finds them in the Guardian or elsewhere I don't know, I've never read an article like that in the Guardian but I don't seek them out so who knows. "funny" is a stretch - perhaps this is why there aren't many right-wing comedians.
Nurses and teachers are chronically underpaid for what they do.
I daren't like that, I'd be accused of being self serving.
There is of course the snag that if you paid them properly - as in, what they're worth - they might work an even shorter time before retiring or at least, doing something else. As I have (although I have no dependents so it's easy for me to do).
What they are worth would be determined by more performance related pay like the top end of the private sector ie those who get the best exam results do the most extra curricular activities etc get paid most.
Those who get poor exam results and can't control their classes and leave straight after the bell every day get payouts or dismissed.
Teachers unions oppose that however
We already have that, you imbecile. And we oppose extending it further because measuring 'performance' isn't as easy as it is for, say, an archivist. Too many factors come into play. For example, there might be somebody who can't deal with facts trying to do a history exam and getting everything wrong.
Anyway, you have never worked in a school and you have no idea about disciplining of staff. I have, and worked as a union rep, and you're simply lying. You're essentially parroting the line of Chris Woodhead. Which is ironic as he actually was dismissed as a teacher from two schools for his abysmal performance (Newent and Gordano, in case you were wondering) before being appointed as first a lecturer at Oxford and then head of OFSTED due to his political connections.
As for Woodhead he was Assistant Head of English at Newent and Head of English at Gordano so they seemed to be happy to appoint him to senior leadership roles.
He also did more to push for reforms and excellence in education and encourage choice against the blob than almost any other person in education before dying of MND in 2015
He was dismissed from those posts, Hyufd. At Newent, for having failed to teach anything in two years and sparking an actual bomb scare* and from Gordano for much the same plus having an affair with a 17 year old girl. He would not have got the job at Gordano if they had taken up references from Newent, but because he was plausible and the then head was a bit dim he got away with it.
He was, at the time, deeply committed to trendy teaching and a socialist. He changed his mind to get preferment, as @bozza should have realised but apparently doesn't. He never cared about the education of children. Only about the greater glory of Chris Woodhead.
*as in, the police closed and cordoned off the school and brought the SAS out from Hereford to check for a bomb. You will, incidentally, not find this on Wikipedia but several teachers who taught alongside him were vocal about it still when I was there in the 1990s.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
Isn't he saying the exact opposite, that you can't ascribe human characteristics to it and it is simply an algorithm whose output is shaped by the input rather than its own intent?
No, he's not. I am the one saying it is simply a machine superbly adapted for the algos of language, in this case, the algos of tedious Woke language
I think you're both saying the same thing to be honest, only he's doing it in a more polite way.
Totally O/T - Anybody having any trouble making online purchases with Visa card today? I am having some transactions go through, others rejected, rung credit card company tell me my account is fine.
Something up with Visa network?
Sounds like a problem with 3DS?
That's the verified by visa thing that you bave to interact with some push notification right?
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
You are going quite mad.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
Begging the question (and you know you are, hence the quote marks round "intelligent"). You train an AI on a big corpus of data, you ask it a question, it pattern matches according to the sort of answer it typically sees to that sort of question. How is that different from teaching an undergraduate, and then setting him an exam?
I put "intelligence" in quotes because there is one heck of a lot of debate on what intelligence actually is. Which is sort-of important if you're trying to make, or define, what an artificial intelligence is.
Humans (well, most of us...) are General Intelligences. We can get up, get annoyed at something we read in the paper, chat to our spouses and kids, then drive to work where we do a complex task (and even stacking shelves can be a complex task). In spare time, we might come on PB for a good old chinwag. In the evening we may go to a choir and feel our spirits uplifted. Or go and play a game of footie.
The problem is, whatever Leon says, that machines cannot even get the simplest of these tasks correct anywhere near 100% reliably, and especially not something like automated driving. Yet we manage to do them all, and perhaps fit a good game of chess in between. We can do lots of different tasks surprisingly well.
What has been developed are *very* limited narrow machine-learning programs (*). We are nowhere near AGIs.
(*) The word 'program' isn't quite correct in this, as the learning set is more important than the system.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
So a teacher who has moved on for any reason at all couldn't work as a supply teacher? Not a good idea at all.
And you're forgetting that a lot of organisations have had several rounds of this. And that some of your 'management' roles are actually also front of house/curtting edge roles. For instance, heads of depts in schools.
Our heads of departments used to also teach. If that's changed then there's a simple fix, make the teach again. On supply teachers or locums in general, yes, no more revolving door. Go and find a permanent job somewhere.
I certainly taught as a Head of Department and when on SLT. In fact, I taught more than a full timetable because we were understaffed.
At my very last school the Deputy Head didn't teach, nor did the Head herself. Everyone else on SLT did, one of them again on a very large timetable because he was one of two people who could teach A-level and GCSE physics. Certainly all the heads of department did.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
You are going quite mad.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
I am? I'm not. I'm enjoying the machine's LITERAL qualities. It's relentless autocomplete. It is a machine, a very very capable machine, but a machine
It is @kinabalu who believes ChatGPT has the sentient capacity to discern a parodic intent, such that the machine will join in with a joke
We know you're not the brightest but please do at least try (!) to follow my drift.
It's a bot. You're doing all the "thinking". Your prompts just steer it to write up an absurd premise in Guardian style.
The output - ie the cheap antiwoke satire - is a reflection of the only brain in play here. Yours.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1h Speaker Hoyle is so furious with @michaelgove for not providing advance copies of his full Cumbria coal statement that he's suspended the Commons.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
GPT-Chat is nowhere near AGI...people have quickly shown it doesn't have any idea about basic maths and also in space of 2-3 interactions not only spew stuff little kids know not to be true, but also contridicts itself e.g. about primes and integers.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1h Speaker Hoyle is so furious with @michaelgove for not providing advance copies of his full Cumbria coal statement that he's suspended the Commons.
@Carnyx fpt: On a flight where we were too mean to pay for seats next to one another my wife was sitting behind me. Being the sensitive person I am I was exchanging stories with the guy next to me about an emergency landing I experienced. The woman next to my wife was going into panic mode and complaining about this idiot in front of her and being completely unaware we were a couple. My wife clouted me and told me to shut up.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
In a sense she was right - it is a bit of a joke. The whole edifice of someone being better than someone else by accident of birth. 'Your highness'. All rather silly.
I think respect is earned, not awarded based on which vagina you passed through on your way into the world.
It was only just over a year ago that Johnson was promising a high wage economy at the tory Coachella for Gammons in Manchester.
And yet not a single Tory at the time seemed concerned with the promise of high wages being made by the largest employer in the land who wanted to keep wage growth for their employees very low? Bizarre, and a clear example of why they are not fit for office.
The quiet secret is that the NHS has successfully suppressed wages, at the low end, since its inception.
All governments since its founding have used its monopoly position in healthcare provision for this purpose. Quite deliberately.
The model of “Get them in cheap, when they complain, we just get some more…”
Also the privatisation of certain areas such as hospital cleaning. Edit: And a great deal of building and facilities maintenance.
That’s a single page in the book. Keeping wages down was discussed in 45 government…
This is why a modern style no-strike agreement was rejected as a policy under Brown, IIRC.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
In a sense she was right - it is a bit of a joke. The whole edifice of someone being better than someone else by accident of birth. 'Your highness'. All rather silly.
I think respect is earned, not awarded based on which vagina you passed through on your way into the world.
Rank isn't the same as merit so it has nothing to do with being 'better'.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
In a sense she was right - it is a bit of a joke. The whole edifice of someone being better than someone else by accident of birth. 'Your highness'. All rather silly.
I think respect is earned, not awarded based on which vagina you passed through on your way into the world.
Rank isn't the same as merit so it has nothing to do with being 'better'.
Whatever you call it, its still the same issue. Why are you born to a rank? Do we not look with scorn on the Indian Caste system but retain our own?
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
But that it's regurgitating Guardian articles is why it's funny and proves the point he's making.
That proves the point I'm making!
It's self-fulfilling because the prompt itself is absurd. The output is effectively injecting absurdity into Guardian style articles - hence producing the trite satire - not showing that Guardian style articles are absurd. Some of them might be but this doesn't show that.
Try it without "racist chimneys" and you'll see.
You're both (all three) right.
It is funny because that is the language of a zillion Guardian articles. All @Leon has done is a reductio ad absurdam by using "racist chimneys" instead of "male white hierarchy" or somesuch.
The point is that you can read in the Guardian why everything is racist/sexist/transphobic and @Leon has just shown that, much as many Guardian journalists, you can swap "male white hierarchy" with any old thing and there is very little difference in the type of article and its construction.
You are right because he is showboating in an existing framework and it is a cheap shot; he is right because the butt of the joke is those endless guardian articles that this has "learned" so amusingly well.
Nurses and teachers are chronically underpaid for what they do.
I daren't like that, I'd be accused of being self serving.
There is of course the snag that if you paid them properly - as in, what they're worth - they might work an even shorter time before retiring or at least, doing something else. As I have (although I have no dependents so it's easy for me to do).
What they are worth would be determined by more performance related pay like the top end of the private sector ie those who get the best exam results do the most extra curricular activities etc get paid most.
Those who get poor exam results and can't control their classes and leave straight after the bell every day get payouts or dismissed.
Teachers unions oppose that however
We already have that, you imbecile. And we oppose extending it further because measuring 'performance' isn't as easy as it is for, say, an archivist. Too many factors come into play. For example, there might be somebody who can't deal with facts trying to do a history exam and getting everything wrong.
Anyway, you have never worked in a school and you have no idea about disciplining of staff. I have, and worked as a union rep, and you're simply lying. You're essentially parroting the line of Chris Woodhead. Which is ironic as he actually was dismissed as a teacher from two schools for his abysmal performance (Newent and Gordano, in case you were wondering) before being appointed as first a lecturer at Oxford and then head of OFSTED due to his political connections.
As for Woodhead he was Assistant Head of English at Newent and Head of English at Gordano so they seemed to be happy to appoint him to senior leadership roles.
He also did more to push for reforms and excellence in education and encourage choice against the blob than almost any other person in education before dying of MND in 2015
He was dismissed from those posts, Hyufd. At Newent, for having failed to teach anything in two years and sparking an actual bomb scare* and from Gordano for much the same plus having an affair with a 17 year old girl. He would not have got the job at Gordano if they had taken up references from Newent, but because he was plausible and the then head was a bit dim he got away with it.
He was, at the time, deeply committed to trendy teaching and a socialist. He changed his mind to get preferment, as @bozza should have realised but apparently doesn't. He never cared about the education of children. Only about the greater glory of Chris Woodhead.
*as in, the police closed and cordoned off the school and brought the SAS out from Hereford to check for a bomb. You will, incidentally, not find this on Wikipedia but several teachers who taught alongside him were vocal about it still when I was there in the 1990s.
Hmmm - the SAS don’t normally do bomb threats. The EOD guys are a very separate bunch.
Who so defined cold blooded bravery that the George Cross was created.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
1-3 are common to the private sector as well. 4 is just silly.
It was only just over a year ago that Johnson was promising a high wage economy at the tory Coachella for Gammons in Manchester.
And yet not a single Tory at the time seemed concerned with the promise of high wages being made by the largest employer in the land who wanted to keep wage growth for their employees very low? Bizarre, and a clear example of why they are not fit for office.
The quiet secret is that the NHS has successfully suppressed wages, at the low end, since its inception.
All governments since its founding have used its monopoly position in healthcare provision for this purpose. Quite deliberately.
The model of “Get them in cheap, when they complain, we just get some more…”
Also the privatisation of certain areas such as hospital cleaning. Edit: And a great deal of building and facilities maintenance.
That’s a single page in the book. Keeping wages down was discussed in 45 government…
This is why a modern style no-strike agreement was rejected as a policy under Brown, IIRC.
The quid pro quo of banning strikes is that an independent group determines an appropriate and fair wage increase.
Which is why Police officers are now paid so much more than firefighters and Ambulance workers.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
You REALLY don't understand this, do you?
It has simply been fed a trillion Woke articles, in knows how they work, so it automatically takes my examples and inserts them into a template woke article, and it does it well, because the Woke template is so formulaic in the first place
It DOES NOT DISCERN A PARODIC INTENT. It does not think Ah, this guy wants a pisstake. It does not see "Disabled Black Trans Women" and see a knowing wink, it takes it at face value, and tries to write an article about them. Ditto racist chimneys
I have to go out for oysters, perhaps @MaxPB will school you more
I think I'd be better off discussing this with oysters tbh. The dimness is breathtaking sometimes.
If you generate a typical woke piece and inject into it via the prompt an absurd premise - eg "racist chimneys" - you'll get some 'chuckles for reactionaries' output. That doesn't show that a typical woke piece is nonsense.
It was only just over a year ago that Johnson was promising a high wage economy at the tory Coachella for Gammons in Manchester.
And yet not a single Tory at the time seemed concerned with the promise of high wages being made by the largest employer in the land who wanted to keep wage growth for their employees very low? Bizarre, and a clear example of why they are not fit for office.
The quiet secret is that the NHS has successfully suppressed wages, at the low end, since its inception.
All governments since its founding have used its monopoly position in healthcare provision for this purpose. Quite deliberately.
The model of “Get them in cheap, when they complain, we just get some more…”
Also the privatisation of certain areas such as hospital cleaning. Edit: And a great deal of building and facilities maintenance.
That’s a single page in the book. Keeping wages down was discussed in 45 government…
This is why a modern style no-strike agreement was rejected as a policy under Brown, IIRC.
The quid pro quo of banning strikes is that an independent group determines an appropriate and fair wage increase.
Which is why Police officers are now paid so much more than firefighters and Ambulance workers.
Quite. There is a reason why unions sign no strike agreements.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
Is this not a bit misleading?
Healthcare, education and transport workers may be employed by the state, but we would need a very similar number of workers if their jobs were funded through insurance or directly. It might be more or less efficient (like the US's healthcare). The public vs private sector funding model doesn't necessarily change indicate what sort of drag it has on the economy.
The real problem is an ageing population and how you fund it without losing dynamism.
The giveaway they weren't real plod, not that they would wilfully ram another vehicle, is they weren't offering tea and biscuits to the drug dealers while waiting for further assistance....
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
You are ascribing sentience to the ChatBOT. You think it is alive and conscious
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
You are going quite mad.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
Begging the question (and you know you are, hence the quote marks round "intelligent"). You train an AI on a big corpus of data, you ask it a question, it pattern matches according to the sort of answer it typically sees to that sort of question. How is that different from teaching an undergraduate, and then setting him an exam?
I put "intelligence" in quotes because there is one heck of a lot of debate on what intelligence actually is. Which is sort-of important if you're trying to make, or define, what an artificial intelligence is.
Humans (well, most of us...) are General Intelligences. We can get up, get annoyed at something we read in the paper, chat to our spouses and kids, then drive to work where we do a complex task (and even stacking shelves can be a complex task). In spare time, we might come on PB for a good old chinwag. In the evening we may go to a choir and feel our spirits uplifted. Or go and play a game of footie.
The problem is, whatever Leon says, that machines cannot even get the simplest of these tasks correct anywhere near 100% reliably, and especially not something like automated driving. Yet we manage to do them all, and perhaps fit a good game of chess in between. We can do lots of different tasks surprisingly well.
What has been developed are *very* limited narrow machine-learning programs (*). We are nowhere near AGIs.
(*) The word 'program' isn't quite correct in this, as the learning set is more important than the system.
All solved in principle for machines. Chatting is what the chatbot does, driving - see tesla, chess - already ahead of us, shelf-stacking - basic algorithm. annoyance and uplift irrelevant epiphenomena. Yes, tesla isn't there yet, but it already drives better than a human drunk and yes, the final 1% is going to be the hardest. But the days of saying it will never be possible are long gone. Football is the most difficult of the lot. The "we can multi task" claim is irrelevant, you just agglomerate your programs.
Totally O/T - Anybody having any trouble making online purchases with Visa card today? I am having some transactions go through, others rejected, rung credit card company tell me my account is fine.
Something up with Visa network?
Sounds like a problem with 3DS?
That's the verified by visa thing that you bave to interact with some push notification right?
Yes, that's right. Not all transactions require 3DS but if one does and it is unavailable, the transaction will fail.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
1-3 are common to the private sector as well. 4 is just silly.
4 is the default as soon as you know you can't successfully deliver what is required.
And all local councils know that 4 is almost a given, given the money available versus the demands being placed on them.
And remember that with inflation at 10% a 5% increase in council tax rates next year means your local council can't keep things going as they were - they need to find a minimum of 5% cost savings.
Mr. Malmesbury, it is proskynesis, if memory serves, that the nobles disliked.
And HM was rather more restrained in her response than Alexander was when a noble... (Cassander? Iollus?) burst out laughing and the king smashed his head against a stone wall.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
1-3 are common to the private sector as well. 4 is just silly.
What is needed is a long term plan to increase productivity in government. This will require an investment of actual billions. My guess is that the workforce would shrink massively in some places, but would be partly balanced by much higher paid roles remaining.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
1-3 are common to the private sector as well. 4 is just silly.
They are seen in some budget-holding departments, but not as an overall approach. If your money is coming from a consumer who can go elsewhere, it incentivises you in a completely different direction than if it comes from a central pot.
And 4 is not silly whatsoever. I don't think hospital workers would have made elderly patients drink the flower water if those patients had been paying for their services and leaving a Tripadvisor review afterwards. There is a total callous disregard for service users in many parts of the public services.
Mr. Malmesbury, it is proskynesis, if memory serves, that the nobles disliked.
And HM was rather more restrained in her response than Alexander was when a noble... (Cassander? Iollus?) burst out laughing and the king smashed his head against a stone wall.
Indeed - thought that Alex used a javelin borrowed from a Group 4 bloke standing nearby?
Totally O/T - Anybody having any trouble making online purchases with Visa card today? I am having some transactions go through, others rejected, rung credit card company tell me my account is fine.
Something up with Visa network?
Sounds like a problem with 3DS?
That's the verified by visa thing that you bave to interact with some push notification right?
Yes, that's right. Not all transactions require 3DS but if one does and it is unavailable, the transaction will fail.
Grrhhhh....I am trying to buy a couple of tickets for a Christmas present and they are the only two left....tried two different cards (obviously both Visa) and not going through....They are going to be nabbed so some git with a Mastercard aren't they.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
1-3 are common to the private sector as well. 4 is just silly.
Not really. In the public sector the service users don't have an alternative so you don't have to care about their satisfaction. That can also be the case in the private sector, but much more rarely.
Further to my point, we are now in a place where 24% of people in employment work for the state and we're about to hit 8m public sector employees, this is where the issue is. The Boris government took its eye off the ball and allowed the public sector start hiring like mad and a million extra workers now need to be paid for which will be costing us tens of billions per year that we weren't spending before. Additionally, loads of these positions won't have made any difference to the delivery of services, just duffers looking for a free ride. If we're going to get a grip of spending and the deficit we need to move back to a place where only 20-22% of the total workforce is employed by the state close to a 4:1 ratio, not the 3:1 we're close to.
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
The recent Autumn statement made no attempt to cut the State. There were no 'cuts' it was a high tax budget to fund high spending.
Neither did the Truss mini budget disaster. The Tories are shit scared of actually cutting the state down to size and explaining to the public why this needs to happen and that the government can't do everything for everyone all the time.
What would you cut, out of (genuine) interest?
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
State growth ~13% more state workers vs the same period 5 years ago and about a 2% increase in private sector workers vs 5 years ago.
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
Great idea for a PB debate, but politically very difficult. A Government would need enormous political capital to do this, that or doing it against the background of total collapse of the nation's finances and an IMF loan.
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to: 1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year 2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money 3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated 4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
1-3 are common to the private sector as well. 4 is just silly.
What is needed is a long term plan to increase productivity in government. This will require an investment of actual billions. My guess is that the workforce would shrink massively in some places, but would be partly balanced by much higher paid roles remaining.
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
You REALLY don't understand this, do you?
It has simply been fed a trillion Woke articles, in knows how they work, so it automatically takes my examples and inserts them into a template woke article, and it does it well, because the Woke template is so formulaic in the first place
It DOES NOT DISCERN A PARODIC INTENT. It does not think Ah, this guy wants a pisstake. It does not see "Disabled Black Trans Women" and see a knowing wink, it takes it at face value, and tries to write an article about them. Ditto racist chimneys
I have to go out for oysters, perhaps @MaxPB will school you more
I think I'd be better off discussing this with oysters tbh. The dimness is breathtaking sometimes.
If you generate a typical woke piece and inject into it via the prompt an absurd premise - eg "racist chimneys" - you'll get some 'chuckles for reactionaries' output. That doesn't show that a typical woke piece is nonsense.
And this is meant to be one of your hot topics!
Yes, it's just the same with computer stuff. ChatGTP has been banned from Stack Overflow for producing copious amounts of plausible-sounding, vaguely humorous, IT-flavoured bullshit. Only an idiot would conclude from this that the field of IT is therefore nonsense.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
For that, you have to blame Harry for not calibrating her expectations appropriately.
Or she wasn't listening/didn't believe him.
Many of the negative stories about her are about how she treated the staff in royal employment. To this outsider it sounds like she treated them like hired flunkies are treated by some hollywood stars, and this is not what they are.
Quite a revealing comment from Meghan Markle. She seemed to see the Royal Family as a kind of British Kardashians.
@chrisshipitv Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting. In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
Twitter has discovered that ChatGPT can hilariously churn out Woke bullshit in half a second. I just put in THIS prompt
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys” field of chimney design and construction, that we can create a more inclusive and just society.”
Hence showing how easy it is to churn out formulaic "woke mocking" drivel.
One worries for toilers like Giles Coren and Rod Liddle.
TBH, I think the first journalists in line will be those hacks who churn out EXACTLY this wearisome bullshit for the Guardian
How many articles are simply entitled “Why XXX is racist” - insert anything you like - golf, gardening, philosophy, fruit picking, furniture
Well now ChatGPT can take that algorithm and spew up this gibberish for free and in 0.2 seconds. Should save the Guardian £££ in wages
Racist prime numbers?
No problemo:
“As a trans Black woman, I am all too familiar with the intersections of racism and transphobia. But recently, I have also been thinking about the intersection of mathematics and racism. In particular, the concept of prime numbers has made me question the inherent biases in the field of mathematics.
For those who may not know, a prime number is a whole number that is divisible only by itself and one. These numbers play a crucial role in mathematical and cryptographic fields, but their very definition perpetuates the notion of superiority and exclusivity.
As a trans Black woman, I am already excluded from many spaces and opportunities due to my intersecting identities. The idea of prime numbers, which are considered the "best" and most exclusive type of number, only reinforces this exclusion. It suggests that only certain numbers are worthy of attention and accolades, just as only certain people are deemed worthy of respect and inclusion in society.”
That is so close to something the Guardian would ACTUALLY publish
Because that's the material the model has been trained on. It is simply parsing your prompt and then matching the tone to something similar and spitting out a vaguely similar response to what it knows. It's very clever because the language parsing is an achievement and so is the response construction, yet it is still stuck in the bounds of what it is, a chatbot. Just a reasonably good one.
Yes, of course - though I would say this is an incredibly impressive chatbot, not just "reasonably good"
The idea it can "detect my parodic intent" is moronic. It just appears that way. And it works because Woke articles are already self-parodic in the way the shamelessly repeat the weary formula - making them easy to reproduce
Yes, it does show that those articles are ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that the chatbot is writing this earnestly and believes this is what you want as a response because it doesn't realise that this is a pisstake.
I wouldn't ascribe attributes like "earnest" to the bot. It's steered by the prompt. If the prompt is a pisstake the output will be too.
No, the idea that it's able to understand the writers intent from the promt is ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying.
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
You REALLY don't understand this, do you?
It has simply been fed a trillion Woke articles, in knows how they work, so it automatically takes my examples and inserts them into a template woke article, and it does it well, because the Woke template is so formulaic in the first place
It DOES NOT DISCERN A PARODIC INTENT. It does not think Ah, this guy wants a pisstake. It does not see "Disabled Black Trans Women" and see a knowing wink, it takes it at face value, and tries to write an article about them. Ditto racist chimneys
I have to go out for oysters, perhaps @MaxPB will school you more
I think I'd be better off discussing this with oysters tbh. The dimness is breathtaking sometimes.
If you generate a typical woke piece and inject into it via the prompt an absurd premise - eg "racist chimneys" - you'll get some 'chuckles for reactionaries' output. That doesn't show that a typical woke piece is nonsense.
And this is meant to be one of your hot topics!
Yes, it's just the same with computer stuff. ChatGTP has been banned from Stack Overflow for producing copious amounts of plausible-sounding, though vaguely humorous, IT-flavoured bullshit. Only an idiot would conclude from this that the field of IT is therefore nonsense.
I regularly use Github Copilot which was basically GPT-3 using Github code and it works well-ish. Its great for simple bits of code or you can't remember the name of a function, or I have some code in one language can you transpose it....but it isn't a magic bullet, you can't take everything it says as 100% accurate.
It seems like GPT-Chat has similar issues. It spews out code which is correct in terms of language terminology it is using, but certainly no guarantee it is doing what you want it to.
Again it comes down to the fact it doesn't actually have an understanding of the world, just an amazing ability to pattern match.
@mjluxmoore Ukraine’s FM @DmytroKuleba said the West should prepare for Russia's possible collapse as a result of the war. “I’m calling on the world not to be afraid of Russia falling apart. If the wheels of history begin to turn, no human will change it."
Totally O/T - Anybody having any trouble making online purchases with Visa card today? I am having some transactions go through, others rejected, rung credit card company tell me my account is fine.
Something up with Visa network?
Sounds like a problem with 3DS?
That's the verified by visa thing that you bave to interact with some push notification right?
Yes, that's right. Not all transactions require 3DS but if one does and it is unavailable, the transaction will fail.
Grrhhhh....I am trying to buy a couple of tickets for a Christmas present and they are the only two left....tried two different cards (obviously both Visa) and not going through....They are going to be nabbed so some git with a Mastercard aren't they.
Schoolboy error there - always make sure you have a card available on a different network - which is getting very difficult now Mastercard have signed up most banks to replace supply Mastercard debit cards.
Comments
The reason there's no growth and the dynamism has evaporated is that the state is just too big and 3 private sector salaries needing to pay for each public sector worker is too high which results in taxes that are too high to achieve growth.
Gen-Z: 49%
Millennials: 47%
Gen-X: 36%
Boomers: 24%
An effect of simple name recognition?
Yeah, I know - subsamples and that, but still.
FWIW London tends to struggle less than regions in many bits of the public sector (teaching for sure, and the civil service). It's much harder to recruit e.g. a decent maths teacher in Blackpool than Barnet.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html
Recruitment I will agree with you - mostly at the moment its hard enough to find post docs who can actually do the job.
ETA: on the ratio of state to private, is that driven by state growth or private contraction? Most likely a mix, I guess, but balance would be interesting.
Whether Labour would be any better is a matter of conjecture.
But they're still puzzling numbers that don't quite smell right.
"This is not the way we do good government."
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1600819725378125824
Not sure what this was about. Gove statement on planning?
I'd start by cutting 30% of admin, senior, middle and junior management roles overnight in all departments and then repeat the process until people notice. Redeploy 60% of the saving towards front line pay and recruitment (100% in the NHS) and 40% to reducing the deficit. Admin and plenty of management/teams roles are there to tick the boxes but really the discussion needs to be based around whether the box should exist at all and if it didn't would anyone notice the difference in service provision? The answer is no in enough cases to make a huge difference both for the nation and those workers who benefit from the pay increase and recruitment in service provision roles.
I'd also cut state funding of charities to zero, the sector has just become another arm of the state and charities are full of time wasters and fatcats getting rich from donations and government funding.
Finally, and the most controversial one, I'd ban contracting within all departments of anyone who has previously worked in the public sector within the last five years. No more revolving door of five figure voluntary redundancy to £1-1.5k day rates.
I was just watching YouTube and saw an advert for the company that Mrs J currently works for. That's the first time that's ever happened, even when she worked for one of he biggest chip companies.
It's also a company that is virtually unknown outside the industry, but which has a multi-billion dollar revenue and is the largest in its sector.
Sadly, I don't need a few thousand microprocessors...
"It is time for us to confront the deep-seated evil of earwigs and their racism against trans black women. These vile creatures have long been a source of suffering for trans black women, with their constant scuttling, desperate jumping, and squeaking in fridges.
But we must not be fooled by their small size and seemingly harmless behavior. Earwigs are, in fact, evil racist creatures, intent on causing harm to trans black women. They express their racism through their actions, such as scurrying away from trans black women, pinging off walls to avoid contact, and even pooing everywhere in an effort to make their presence known.
It is time for us to take a stand against these vile creatures and their hateful behavior. We must smite them with organic moccasins, or even better, slap them with George Monbiot books. This will send a clear message that their racism will not be tolerated.
We cannot continue to ignore the suffering of trans black women at the hands of these evil racist earwigs. It is our duty to stand up and take action, before it is too late. Let us smite these hateful creatures and put an end to their racist ways."
For you, it has passed the Turing Test. Interesting (also quite quite stupid)
And you're forgetting that a lot of organisations have had several rounds of this. And that some of your 'management' roles are actually also front of house/curtting edge roles. For instance, heads of depts in schools.
I repeat: the danger from AI comes not from AI itself, but from people believing that AI has more 'intelligence' than it really has.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/joe-biden-administration-approval-ratings-and-hypothetical-voting-intention-5-december-2022/
It is @kinabalu who believes ChatGPT has the sentient capacity to discern a parodic intent, such that the machine will join in with a joke
Take this prompt:
“Write an intersectional op-Ed about disabled Trans black women and the problem of racist chimneys”
Ok, so that's got mocking and absurdity built in. "Disabled Trans black women" and "Racist chimneys" ho ho. The bot doesn't laugh or smirk or roll its eyes - it does none of that - what it does is it takes the (absurd mocking) premise and fleshes out with typical Guardian like copy - the style, the lingo - and hey presto you get a few paras of (what a surprise!) mocking absurdity. The output looks like cheap anti-woke satire because it's been steered that way by a user (in this case our Leon) using cheap anti-woke satire in the prompt.
That's all that's happening.
Which might or might not be Max's intention.
From my limited knowledge of the sector, Max's generalisation is unfair. There are very well managed charities along with the very bad.
“Write an op-Ed about Trans black women and the problem of marginalisation and intersectional disadvantage."
ie dropping the "racist chimneys"
See what you get.
Our university tried banning advertising for admin staff until the previous person had actually left role (i.e. until the role was actually vacant). Lots of better paid people doing the job, badly, in the interim.
It has simply been fed a trillion Woke articles, in knows how they work, so it automatically takes my examples and inserts them into a template woke article, and it does it well, because the Woke template is so formulaic in the first place
It DOES NOT DISCERN A PARODIC INTENT. It does not think Ah, this guy wants a pisstake. It does not see "Disabled Black Trans Women" and see a knowing wink, it takes it at face value, and tries to write an article about them. Ditto racist chimneys
I have to go out for oysters, perhaps @MaxPB will school you more
The estimate of Scotland’s offshore wind potential included all resource at least 5km from the shoreline in waters up to 30m deep, and assumed a turbine density of 8 MW per square km. It did not consider technical, navigational, or environmental issues that may affect installation of turbines
.
The estimate of Europe’s offshore wind potential only included waters up to 20m deep, and assumed a turbine density of 6 MW per square km. It included only 10 per cent of the resource 0-10km from the shoreline, 50 per cent of the resource 10-30km from the shoreline and none beyond 30km. According to the report, they were based on a “very conservative approach” to come up with the likely “exploitable resource”. The figure is also based on just 11 countries from the then European Community and excludes countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland which have large offshore wind potential.
In summary, the calculation for Europe’s offshore wind potential was much more restrictive than that for Scotland. So, when the figures are used together, they give an inflated picture of Scotland’s potential relative to the rest of Europe.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/no2nuisancecalls/mailings/11368/attachments/original/20221207_Alex_Hamilton-Cole_MSP_(Scottish_renewables).pdf?1670493093
Something up with Visa network?
I think something deeper is needed, that incentivises the public sector to find efficiencies and maximise shareholder value the way the private sector does. At the moment, the incentives are opposite. You get your money from politicians, therefore you're incentivised to:
1. Spend it all or you'll lose it next year
2. Convince the public that your department is failing and needs more money
3. If asked to cut, cut front-line services, to make cuts politically costly and unlikely to be repeated
4. Concern yourself very little with the satisfaction of service users.
The incentives need to be reversed. Not entirely sure how!
It's self-fulfilling because the prompt itself is absurd. The output is effectively injecting absurdity into Guardian style articles - hence producing the trite satire - not showing that Guardian style articles are absurd. Some of them might be but this doesn't show that.
Try it without "racist chimneys" and you'll see.
BBC News - Griner: Russia frees US basketball star in swap with arms dealer Bout
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63905112
He was, at the time, deeply committed to trendy teaching and a socialist. He changed his mind to get preferment, as @bozza should have realised but apparently doesn't. He never cared about the education of children. Only about the greater glory of Chris Woodhead.
*as in, the police closed and cordoned off the school and brought the SAS out from Hereford to check for a bomb. You will, incidentally, not find this on Wikipedia but several teachers who taught alongside him were vocal about it still when I was there in the 1990s.
Humans (well, most of us...) are General Intelligences. We can get up, get annoyed at something we read in the paper, chat to our spouses and kids, then drive to work where we do a complex task (and even stacking shelves can be a complex task). In spare time, we might come on PB for a good old chinwag. In the evening we may go to a choir and feel our spirits uplifted. Or go and play a game of footie.
The problem is, whatever Leon says, that machines cannot even get the simplest of these tasks correct anywhere near 100% reliably, and especially not something like automated driving. Yet we manage to do them all, and perhaps fit a good game of chess in between. We can do lots of different tasks surprisingly well.
What has been developed are *very* limited narrow machine-learning programs (*). We are nowhere near AGIs.
(*) The word 'program' isn't quite correct in this, as the learning set is more important than the system.
At my very last school the Deputy Head didn't teach, nor did the Head herself. Everyone else on SLT did, one of them again on a very large timetable because he was one of two people who could teach A-level and GCSE physics. Certainly all the heads of department did.
It's a bot. You're doing all the "thinking". Your prompts just steer it to write up an absurd premise in Guardian style.
The output - ie the cheap antiwoke satire - is a reflection of the only brain in play here. Yours.
@paulwaugh
·
1h
Speaker Hoyle is so furious with
@michaelgove
for not providing advance copies of his full Cumbria coal statement that he's suspended the Commons.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1600816265723285505
@chrisshipitv
Meghan says “I thought it was a joke” when she was told she would have to curtsy to Harry’s grandmother, the Queen on their first meeting.
In her interview, Meghan performs a deep bow with her arms outstretched and says “Pleasure to meet you Your Majesty” and asked “was that ok?”
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1600805708249051137
I think respect is earned, not awarded based on which vagina you passed through on your way into the world.
This is why a modern style no-strike agreement was rejected as a policy under Brown, IIRC.
It is funny because that is the language of a zillion Guardian articles. All @Leon has done is a reductio ad absurdam by using "racist chimneys" instead of "male white hierarchy" or somesuch.
The point is that you can read in the Guardian why everything is racist/sexist/transphobic and @Leon has just shown that, much as many Guardian journalists, you can swap "male white hierarchy" with any old thing and there is very little difference in the type of article and its construction.
You are right because he is showboating in an existing framework and it is a cheap shot; he is right because the butt of the joke is those endless guardian articles that this has "learned" so amusingly well.
Who so defined cold blooded bravery that the George Cross was created.
Which is why Police officers are now paid so much more than firefighters and Ambulance workers.
If you generate a typical woke piece and inject into it via the prompt an absurd premise - eg "racist chimneys" - you'll get some 'chuckles for reactionaries' output. That doesn't show that a typical woke piece is nonsense.
And this is meant to be one of your hot topics!
Healthcare, education and transport workers may be employed by the state, but we would need a very similar number of workers if their jobs were funded through insurance or directly. It might be more or less efficient (like the US's healthcare). The public vs private sector funding model doesn't necessarily change indicate what sort of drag it has on the economy.
The real problem is an ageing population and how you fund it without losing dynamism.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516163/Gangsters-pretending-police-RAM-Land-Rover-van-drugs-B-Q.html
And all local councils know that 4 is almost a given, given the money available versus the demands being placed on them.
And remember that with inflation at 10% a 5% increase in council tax rates next year means your local council can't keep things going as they were - they need to find a minimum of 5% cost savings.
And HM was rather more restrained in her response than Alexander was when a noble... (Cassander? Iollus?) burst out laughing and the king smashed his head against a stone wall.
And 4 is not silly whatsoever. I don't think hospital workers would have made elderly patients drink the flower water if those patients had been paying for their services and leaving a Tripadvisor review afterwards. There is a total callous disregard for service users in many parts of the public services.
Many of the negative stories about her are about how she treated the staff in royal employment. To this outsider it sounds like she treated them like hired flunkies are treated by some hollywood stars, and this is not what they are.
It seems like GPT-Chat has similar issues. It spews out code which is correct in terms of language terminology it is using, but certainly no guarantee it is doing what you want it to.
Again it comes down to the fact it doesn't actually have an understanding of the world, just an amazing ability to pattern match.
Ukraine’s FM @DmytroKuleba said the West should prepare for Russia's possible collapse as a result of the war. “I’m calling on the world not to be afraid of Russia falling apart. If the wheels of history begin to turn, no human will change it."
https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1600844877217992705