Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
They are at least trying not to treat working people like shite. Which is good on several levels.
Talking about sex education in schools, weren't you, the other day, BTW? There was also this report: slightly unfortunate headline:
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
Wales is so dynamic they're imposing a tourist tax
Who can blame them, with crowds of literally tens of people all trying to get to Swansea every year? This could easily raise twelve quid, which could then be used to buy some sellotape
It's possible for the Conservatives to win, but it increasingly needs a black swan to happen. Quiet competence and not actually going into recession won't cut it.
So every day that the black swans stay in the swan house (like a duck house, only bigger and capable of breaking a man's arm) is a good day for the opposition parties.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
Wales is so dynamic they're imposing a tourist tax
Who can blame them, with crowds of literally tens of people all trying to get to Swansea every year? This could easily raise twelve quid, which could then be used to buy some sellotape
England is doing it too. Cornwall and Manc.
Cornwall makes sense. Have you seen St Ives in August? Manc, hmmmmm
It's possible for the Conservatives to win, but it increasingly needs a black swan to happen. Quiet competence and not actually going into recession won't cut it.
So every day that the black swans stay in the swan house (like a duck house, only bigger and capable of breaking a man's arm) is a good day for the opposition parties.
Do they claim expenses for the swan house? I want to know.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
You've missed the point - the people driven by anti-Toryism don't have a high level of loyalty to Labour as a brand so they only work for it when their view of anti-Toryism matches that of the leadership. Because if it doesn't, the leadership are "Tories", don't you see?
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I don't actually know ANY Tory supporters on the far left (and I'd bet that I know lots more people on the far left than most posters here). Even BJO isn't planning to vote Tory - he's just not going to vote Labour either. There will certainly be some left-wingers who drift off to Greens or TUSC or even abstention, but as things stand there will I think be more regular Tory voters who drift to RefUK or LibDem or abstention - and a fair number (14% of Tories in 2019 in the last poll I saw) who actually do plan to vote Labour, for the reasons mentioned by Algarkirk.
I'm not sure it's realised how far the Tory party has hollowed out, even in their strongholds. I live in Jeremy Hunt's constituency. He got 53% of the vote last time. Yet Conservative membership locally has diminished to fewer than 150 paid-up members, which is a fraction of both LibDem and Labour membership. They are struggling to find enough candidates - even paper candidates - to stand in every seat - and it's the first time that's been the case in the history of the constituency. If that's the position here, what can it be like somewhere like marginal Swindon?
I’ve been rethinking the “no Labour supporters on the Tory right” point. Perhaps the tendency is there, but expressed differently.
There’s an entire corps of right wingers who delight in the idea that regardless of who’s actually in power in Westminster, the country is actually run by an elite of woke lefty liberal types. Why only this week Matt Goodwin has been at it.
Perhaps that’s the equivalent. People who are more ideologically comfortable claiming to be the underdogs than actually being in power (hard left) or accepting they really are in power (hard right).
It's possible for the Conservatives to win, but it increasingly needs a black swan to happen. Quiet competence and not actually going into recession won't cut it.
So every day that the black swans stay in the swan house (like a duck house, only bigger and capable of breaking a man's arm) is a good day for the opposition parties.
3 scénarios perhaps:
1. Nothing much happens between now and GE: slow swing back, small Lab majority or Labour largest party 2. Black swan favouring government (like Labour implosion, hot war, another pandemic, robo attacks in Menorca or something): narrow Con win 3. One Sunak fuck up: massive Labour landslide
"One of the major difficulties for European startups is data regulation - startups prefer to operate in the US where there is much less uncertainty around what is and isn't possible to do with customer data. For example one of our clients operates in the UK and US, they have their servers in EU West-1, but to integrate with a customer profile builder tool they need to have all of their data in a US data centre because the company that does the profile doesn't want to touch customer data in the EU for fear of fines. For this company it's not such a big deal because they have the ability to replicate data in the US with AWS and because they don't have EU customers it's not a huge problem for them."
Quoting myself from less than two weeks ago re ChatGPT getting banned in Italy (and soon the EU).
This is why the EU will never really have tech startups and there is zero threat to the UKs leading role innovation economy in Europe.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Great post.
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
Wales is so dynamic they're imposing a tourist tax
Who can blame them, with crowds of literally tens of people all trying to get to Swansea every year? This could easily raise twelve quid, which could then be used to buy some sellotape
As long as that aisle in the supermarket hasn't been closed off.
An unprecedented in modern times fifth term for Sunak's Conservatives is unlikely but a hung parliament is possible, even if Starmer still wins most seats
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
"One of the major difficulties for European startups is data regulation - startups prefer to operate in the US where there is much less uncertainty around what is and isn't possible to do with customer data. For example one of our clients operates in the UK and US, they have their servers in EU West-1, but to integrate with a customer profile builder tool they need to have all of their data in a US data centre because the company that does the profile doesn't want to touch customer data in the EU for fear of fines. For this company it's not such a big deal because they have the ability to replicate data in the US with AWS and because they don't have EU customers it's not a huge problem for them."
Quoting myself from less than two weeks ago re ChatGPT getting banned in Italy (and soon the EU).
This is why the EU will never really have tech startups and there is zero threat to the UKs leading role innovation economy in Europe.
Skype/Spotify?
Booking.com, SAP, ASML, Infineon etc. But undoubtedly way behind the US (as is the UK).
heard today a reported comment from one of the top 10 GOP donors. I was speaking to the person he spoke to.
Comment was that he’s never seen so much money and organisational capability lined up behind one candidate (De Santis). He doesn’t think Trump can do it again - view was that he got lucky last time because no one took him seriously.
I have no idea whether this is accurate or not but pass it on as a data point for what it is worth
An unprecedented in modern times fifth term for Sunak's Conservatives is unlikely but a hung parliament is possible, even if Starmer still wins most seats
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
Wales is so dynamic they're imposing a tourist tax
Who can blame them, with crowds of literally tens of people all trying to get to Swansea every year? This could easily raise twelve quid, which could then be used to buy some sellotape
There were at least half a dozen PB'ers hanging out in Penarth at one point. That would add up to a fair chunk of tourist tax.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Great post.
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
Yeah. There are some posters for whom there's no need to trace carefully back up through the nesting of the "previous quotes" to check the author. Luckyguy is such a poster.
Looks like the demarcation for the north south divide has moved a fraction northwards since the days of the Bristol channel to the Wash. The signifier is mortgage repayments.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
That's why they're the Stepford Wives Party. Anyone watch Kemi Badenoch explaining how important Palm Oil is to our economy? You couldn't make it up. Even she looked embarrassed.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Great post.
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
Hm. Who's to say fags, scratchcards, low quality clotges etc are 'bad'uses of money? People spend £10(!) on a packet of fags or some lottery tickets because they derive £10 or more worth of value from doing so.
heard today a reported comment from one of the top 10 GOP donors. I was speaking to the person he spoke to.
Comment was that he’s never seen so much money and organisational capability lined up behind one candidate (De Santis). He doesn’t think Trump can do it again - view was that he got lucky last time because no one took him seriously.
I have no idea whether this is accurate or not but pass it on as a data point for what it is worth
I'm genuinely curious to see what they will throw at Trump if they are indeed lined up so much.
"We like and agree with everything Trump says and does, but it's all just a bit exhausing dealing with him" seems to be their current pitch, pre DeSantis officially launching, and I have trouble seeing how that will work even if they book every single ad on Fox News.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
That's why they're the Stepford Wives Party. Anyone watch Kemi Badenoch explaining how important Palm Oil is to our economy? You couldn't make it up. Even she looked embarrassed.
Groundnuts, anyone?
Old M4 tanks hacked around and reassembled into tractors ...
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
They are at least trying not to treat working people like shite. Which is good on several levels.
Talking about sex education in schools, weren't you, the other day, BTW? There was also this report: slightly unfortunate headline:
Thanks. And yes, unfortunate headlines. I do accept that the most egregious examples aren't typical. That doesn't mean they are not concerning. And there's an element of MRDA here - the agenda is being driven by people who are invested in it. They would say criticism of it is wrong.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed, "GTTO".
We were on a break but this is such nonsense I'm moved to engage.
The problem with the sort of Leftists we're talking about here is the very opposite of them being driven by anti-toryism rather than by something positive. If they were driven by that (like eg me) they'd put quibbles about the rightward drift of the party under Starmer aside in order to focus on what anti-tories want most of all - the tories sent packing into opposition.
Oh dont be silly you love a Tory government - you get all the pleasure of carping from the sidelines and dont actually have to do anything.
I can absolutely assure you I don't. Ok I'll lose a bit of pundit energy when Labour take over, it won't be as good in that sense, but the compensations of peace of mind, better sleep, a general feeling of wellbeing, these will more than outweigh that. I just feel better about life when there's a Labour government. Always have done.
"Whatever the future in Westminster brings, Wales is setting itself on a distinct pathway, one where fair work, wellbeing and forging positive relationships with trade unions are at the forefront. The question is: can the rest of the UK keep up?"
Hahahaha.
Can we keep up with the dynamism and brilliance being forged by Mark Drakeford?
Hahahahaha
They are at least trying not to treat working people like shite. Which is good on several levels.
Talking about sex education in schools, weren't you, the other day, BTW? There was also this report: slightly unfortunate headline:
Thanks. And yes, unfortunate headlines. I do accept that the most egregious examples aren't typical. That doesn't mean they are not concerning. And there's an element of MRDA here - the agenda is being driven by people who are invested in it. They would say criticism of it is wrong.
And in your other point, I'm not sure they are trying not to treat working people like shite. Treating working people like shite or otherwise seems fairly low down on the agenda compared ti the various fashionable issues du jour which Drakeford seems so miserably focused on.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
I find the complaints about it to be a bit try hard to be honest. It looks like a fairly dull piece of international deal making, which naturally the government is overhyping because governments want to look good. So it won't have a massive impact, why does that mean the UK is a joke? By your own post the worse that could be said about it is it's not that big a deal - so why are people getting so worked up?
Looks like the demarcation for the north south divide has moved a fraction northwards since the days of the Bristol channel to the Wash. The signifier is mortgage repayments.
I'm slightly surprised that graph indicates house prices had only increased at peak ~50% since 2007. from comments on here, it would have been much higher. What am I missing? Inflation-adjustments?
Teachers working 12-hour days, leaked report says ... three-quarters of teachers said they spent too much time on paperwork, while two-thirds of senior leaders felt they were spending too much time responding to government policy changes ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65138300
Sounds like ydoethur is well out of it.
Our local primary school (actually two separate schools as it is split between infant and juniors) has lost one head and two TAs to the profession in the last six months. Another teacher is off with stress. This is a pretty cushty school, all told in a middle class area. But teaching has become so bloody dufficult. I thi k teaching ought to be better rewarded than it is, but is also ought to be considerably better supported - more TAs, lower workload. Particularly with the torrent of SEN cases which are coming through after lockdown. Having said that, I also think the NEU are ideologically driven syndicalists who are antithetical to the cause of education ajd must be ground into the dirt. How to reconcile the two?
What exactly is the Italian (and other) objection to ChatGPT on privacy grounds? It doesn't seem to need to process personal data, or have I missed something?
Like the original Google et al, it spiders the Internet for text and images. Then uses them as the data set for its learning. whether someone who spent days painting a picture of a seascape then posted it to an Internet site agreed to such usage, is a different matter.
And yes, I don't expect them to be looking at the data privacy implications of the data they trawl. The diarrhoetic and unintelligent hype is enough for them. Do something, then ask for permission,
So is the objection that EU citizens can't get the (rather silly) option to remove information about themselves on the trawl, as they can in theory with Google searches?
I can see the issue, but it's not obvious how it could ever be resolved.
I think the issue is that a 'trawl' was seen as being a spider-like trawl for links on link accumulators and aggregators. Not "your content is ours to use, borrow and evolve".
"as they can in theory"
There hangs a rather large issue. Imagine that there's some AI out there using PB's comments as a 'source' for their machine learning. "Turnips, trains and foreign food are the source of all happiness in life" would probably be its conclusion...
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
Well, we really don't know. A lot depends on what the balance of trade is with that part of the world in 10 years time. Will imports from there increase (palm oil and EVs), or is Vietnam busting to import English Fizz?
The relationship of these countries to China is rather like that of Latin America to the USA. They might not like it much, but they are dominated by it.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
In the US, a congressman can sometimes make a marginal seat safer over time by constituent services, by, for instance, helping out a veteran with the Veteran's administration. Typically, a number of people on their staffs do only that. (And, interestingly, from time to time, a staffer will stay in that job, even after party change.)
Or just by spending more time in the district. (Or state, for senators, if it is a small state. Iowa's Charles Grassley visits every county in Iowa, at least once a year.)
(That's less true than it was a decade or so ago, as our politics have become more nationalized.)
Am I right to assume something similar can happen in the UK? And, if so, how much would that help the Conservatives in the next election? One or two seats? Ten or twenty? Or how much?
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
So whats your solution the state takes it all and doles out money for approved usage.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less. Why central tax is at an all time high but services are going down hill. Keep your thieving hands off my earnings
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
Labour's biggest potential problem is the likelihood they will pile up votes in their safe seats, to an even greater extent than is currently the case.
The people that voted against the Tories previously are now absolutely apoplectic at them. Their heads will explode if the Tories manage to win again.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Great post.
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
Hm. Who's to say fags, scratchcards, low quality clotges etc are 'bad'uses of money? People spend £10(!) on a packet of fags or some lottery tickets because they derive £10 or more worth of value from doing so.
Precisely arseholes on the left think they can declare this is good expenditure and that is bad....to me for example spending 100£ on a bottle of wine seems a waste. Personally I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Some people say they can and its worth it to them so good luck and enjoy. The soulless left wing however want us only to spend money on what they deem worthy with no reference to what we enjoy so fuck them
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Yet there are many millions of people who have massively increased their income and assets and don't have any debts.
Which doesn't sound like the average government.
So why do governments tend to imitate the worst individuals in financial decisions rather than the best ?
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
Still remains the fact the total tax take is up service delivery is down whether delivered by local or central, this is not specifically a tory problem either it was true in the blair years too but hidden by their insane borrowing and pfi initiatives to make it seem they were doing more for the same money.
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Great post.
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
The logical conclusion from what you say is the government should confiscate all money from the people and spend it on their behalf because they will do it more wisely.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
Still remains the fact the total tax take is up service delivery is down whether delivered by local or central, this is not specifically a tory problem either it was true in the blair years too but hidden by their insane borrowing and pfi initiatives to make it seem they were doing more for the same money.
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
Truly reckless councils who spaff their money up the wall are a rarity. For a lot of them cost of adult social care makes up 50+% of what they spend and is rising each year, even with making efficiencies and cutting staff and other services
You're kidding yourself if you think the principal problem is politicians on local councils throwing money around - it happens, but is not the main reason the councils are struggling so much, and is just a far too easy explanation.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed "GTTO".
Seeing as loads of Tories can switch seemlessly between supporting Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak, who not only offered quite different visions and policies, but also campaigned in their leadership elections against the policies of their predecessors, Tories covers a hell of a lot of political ground!
At this moment the polls say that several million former Tories can't do exactly that.
All politics is relative. Labour is, for many natural Tories both morally more impressive, and closer - if not very close - to One nation Toryism than the current party. Politics being relative, Labour could wreck that merely by getting morally and politically worse while the Tories stayed the same.
Only to weak-willed, lily-livered, turncoat types like yourself - who lack the courage of your own convictions.
To everyone else it's pretty clear you're getting sucked in by professional spin and a lack of confidence in yourself.
heard today a reported comment from one of the top 10 GOP donors. I was speaking to the person he spoke to.
Comment was that he’s never seen so much money and organisational capability lined up behind one candidate (De Santis). He doesn’t think Trump can do it again - view was that he got lucky last time because no one took him seriously.
I have no idea whether this is accurate or not but pass it on as a data point for what it is worth
I'm genuinely curious to see what they will throw at Trump if they are indeed lined up so much.
"We like and agree with everything Trump says and does, but it's all just a bit exhausing dealing with him" seems to be their current pitch, pre DeSantis officially launching, and I have trouble seeing how that will work even if they book every single ad on Fox News.
The risk is they try to freeze him out of money and airtime. I’m not sure establishment vs the insurgent will work out for them
heard today a reported comment from one of the top 10 GOP donors. I was speaking to the person he spoke to.
Comment was that he’s never seen so much money and organisational capability lined up behind one candidate (De Santis). He doesn’t think Trump can do it again - view was that he got lucky last time because no one took him seriously.
I have no idea whether this is accurate or not but pass it on as a data point for what it is worth
I'm genuinely curious to see what they will throw at Trump if they are indeed lined up so much.
"We like and agree with everything Trump says and does, but it's all just a bit exhausing dealing with him" seems to be their current pitch, pre DeSantis officially launching, and I have trouble seeing how that will work even if they book every single ad on Fox News.
The first dozen messengers to try and go anti Trump will become hated RINOs overnight. The next set of messengers lined up will suddenly decide Trump is better than end of career.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
Still remains the fact the total tax take is up service delivery is down whether delivered by local or central, this is not specifically a tory problem either it was true in the blair years too but hidden by their insane borrowing and pfi initiatives to make it seem they were doing more for the same money.
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
Truly reckless councils who spaff their money up the wall are a rarity. For a lot of them cost of adult social care makes up 50+% of what they spend and is rising each year, even with making efficiencies and cutting staff and other services
You're kidding yourself if you think the principal problem is politicians on local councils throwing money around - it happens, but is not the main reason the councils are struggling so much, and is just a far too easy explanation.
Yes, same with the NHS. The ageing demographics of the country is why we pay more and get less. Its not about public vs private, but rather an ageing population places a financial burden on the country through pensions, health and social care, however financed.
Personally I see is a social good that we treat our elderly as useful members of society.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
Still remains the fact the total tax take is up service delivery is down whether delivered by local or central, this is not specifically a tory problem either it was true in the blair years too but hidden by their insane borrowing and pfi initiatives to make it seem they were doing more for the same money.
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
Truly reckless councils who spaff their money up the wall are a rarity. For a lot of them cost of adult social care makes up 50+% of what they spend and is rising each year, even with making efficiencies and cutting staff and other services
You're kidding yourself if you think the principal problem is politicians on local councils throwing money around - it happens, but is not the main reason the councils are struggling so much, and is just a far too easy explanation.
Council I was living in last year went bankrupt . It was slough....example of insanity the company I worked for was renting the second floor of the council building two more floors above for rent....they had only managed to rent out half of one...the companies lease ran out and they said to the council we need a rent reduction to stay from 300k a year to 200k a year...council said no it will be 450k from now on. Company said fuck off and moved out so now instead of 1.5 floors unrented they now have 2.5 floors unoccupied....this was before covid
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I am not committed to a fundamental version of Labour.
I voted for Lisa Nandy who said she wanted to break Corbyn as a man.
What I will never support is a man who has told Socialists to fuck off from the day after he was elected on a manifesto of uniting all wings of the Party which he has done the total opposite.
I think the red Tories on here underestimate the number of people who feel the same. I voted for Blair twice as did most on the left there are 000s of thousands who won't vote SKS who voted for Blair IMO.
I predict Labour on a lower overall turnout gets less than the 12.9m votes it got in 2017.
Only idiots or those not paying attention are taken in by Starmer.
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
BBC news is not a reliable source. You ought to know that
Roger is in advertising, you are surprised he hypes propaganda?
None of the main Media sources is reliable. Sky .. never wrong for long. GB news risible. ITV never watch BBc online possibly. My news comes from.the Times which I trust more than the others but its getting more bland and Sun like.....v worrying.
In the US, a congressman can sometimes make a marginal seat safer over time by constituent services, by, for instance, helping out a veteran with the Veteran's administration. Typically, a number of people on their staffs do only that. (And, interestingly, from time to time, a staffer will stay in that job, even after party change.)
Or just by spending more time in the district. (Or state, for senators, if it is a small state. Iowa's Charles Grassley visits every county in Iowa, at least once a year.)
(That's less true than it was a decade or so ago, as our politics have become more nationalized.)
Am I right to assume something similar can happen in the UK? And, if so, how much would that help the Conservatives in the next election? One or two seats? Ten or twenty? Or how much?
IIRC there was an analysis a few years ago that suggested the personal vote could be worth 1,000-1,500 votes. So helpful but not decisive
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Great post.
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
The logical conclusion from what you say is the government should confiscate all money from the people and spend it on their behalf because they will do it more wisely.
Or as every country in the world has come round to - there are areas money is better spent privately, and areas money is better spent publicly. No ideological nonsense required to see that trumps 100% state or 100% private.
Exactly what each is better at varies over time and circumstance, and is where debate is needed rather than the childish one is always better than the other.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I am not committed to a fundamental version of Labour.
I voted for Lisa Nandy who said she wanted to break Corbyn as a man.
What I will never support is a man who has told Socialists to fuck off from the day after he was elected on a manifesto of uniting all wings of the Party which he has done the total opposite.
I think the red Tories on here underestimate the number of people who feel the same. I voted for Blair twice as did most on the left there are 000s of thousands who won't vote SKS who voted for Blair IMO.
I predict Labour on a lower overall turnout gets less than the 12.9m votes it got in 2017.
Only idiots or those not paying attention are taken in by Starmer.
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
BBC news is not a reliable source. You ought to know that
Roger is in advertising, you are surprised he hypes propaganda?
None of the main Media sources is reliable. Sky .. never wrong for long. GB news risible. ITV never watch BBc online possibly. My news comes from.the Times which I trust more than the others but its getting more bland and Sun like.....v worrying.
Shrugs most traditional media now is not trustworthy, nor the police , nor the government nor any politicians
If Parliament (aka the Tories) dish out some serious punishment to the clown, they might be able to draw some sort of a line under the era of the comedians. That, coupled with the significant advantage that FPTnP gives them, could put them back into the game.
Hence why Starmer consigned Corbyn into exile last week. Had he not done so and the Tories then cast out the clown, he could have been in real trouble.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
Still remains the fact the total tax take is up service delivery is down whether delivered by local or central, this is not specifically a tory problem either it was true in the blair years too but hidden by their insane borrowing and pfi initiatives to make it seem they were doing more for the same money.
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
Truly reckless councils who spaff their money up the wall are a rarity. For a lot of them cost of adult social care makes up 50+% of what they spend and is rising each year, even with making efficiencies and cutting staff and other services
You're kidding yourself if you think the principal problem is politicians on local councils throwing money around - it happens, but is not the main reason the councils are struggling so much, and is just a far too easy explanation.
Yes, same with the NHS. The ageing demographics of the country is why we pay more and get less. Its not about public vs private, but rather an ageing population places a financial burden on the country through pensions, health and social care, however financed.
Personally I see is a social good that we treat our elderly as useful members of society.
Please can we teach demographics properly at school, most of the bad politics in the country stems from a lack of understanding of our demographics leading to unrealistic expectations and "solutions".
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I am not committed to a fundamental version of Labour.
I voted for Lisa Nandy who said she wanted to break Corbyn as a man.
What I will never support is a man who has told Socialists to fuck off from the day after he was elected on a manifesto of uniting all wings of the Party which he has done the total opposite.
I think the red Tories on here underestimate the number of people who feel the same. I voted for Blair twice as did most on the left there are 000s of thousands who won't vote SKS who voted for Blair IMO.
I predict Labour on a lower overall turnout gets less than the 12.9m votes it got in 2017.
Only idiots or those not paying attention are taken in by Starmer.
In the US, a congressman can sometimes make a marginal seat safer over time by constituent services, by, for instance, helping out a veteran with the Veteran's administration. Typically, a number of people on their staffs do only that. (And, interestingly, from time to time, a staffer will stay in that job, even after party change.)
Or just by spending more time in the district. (Or state, for senators, if it is a small state. Iowa's Charles Grassley visits every county in Iowa, at least once a year.)
(That's less true than it was a decade or so ago, as our politics have become more nationalized.)
Am I right to assume something similar can happen in the UK? And, if so, how much would that help the Conservatives in the next election? One or two seats? Ten or twenty? Or how much?
Yes it is possible for particularly active MPs. There tends to be a incumbent bonus for new MPs, but only a few percent, so does not make that much different on the margins for Conservative and Labour MPs.
LibDem MPs tend to work harder in the constituency, as their vote is more precarious, and thus can build up a large following which then dissapates after they leave, eg Alan Beith in Berwick and Simon Hughes in Bermondsey.
I think that there is less pork barrel politics in the UK, than in the US, so the opportunity for MPs there is less.
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
Well, we really don't know. A lot depends on what the balance of trade is with that part of the world in 10 years time. Will imports from there increase (palm oil and EVs), or is Vietnam busting to import English Fizz?
The relationship of these countries to China is rather like that of Latin America to the USA. They might not like it much, but they are dominated by it.
Those trying to downplay CPTPP are almost all those who are committed to rejoining the EU and cannot seem to accept that joining a market that in 7 years will include 40% of the middle clases and will have expanded in membership is the future
It is being said that the UK joining is a real positive for the trading block as other countries follow UK and of course we still trade with the EU and hopefully in an improving relationship
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
BBC news is not a reliable source. You ought to know that
Roger is in advertising, you are surprised he hypes propaganda?
None of the main Media sources is reliable. Sky .. never wrong for long. GB news risible. ITV never watch BBc online possibly. My news comes from.the Times which I trust more than the others but its getting more bland and Sun like.....v worrying.
*No* single source of information is reliable. even (shock, horror!) PB!
Use many sources, but rate them according to their reliability in your view - and whether they all get their sources from the same input. If (say) the Times and the Guardian give similar information, it *may* be roughly near the truth - especially if they are reporting from different sources.
As an exercise for the reader: how do we *know* that the Russians are *losing* in Ukraine? (I think I could give a reasonable argument for this).
But going further: how do we *know* a war is actually going on in Ukraine? I've met a couple of refugees from it, but they may have been plants. And I haven't been to the area the so-called 'war' is allegedly going on in.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less.
Council tax goes up by more but less is delivered because the grant from central government has been cut sharply. So even though council tax has gone up the total funding available to your council is less than it was in 2010.
Still remains the fact the total tax take is up service delivery is down whether delivered by local or central, this is not specifically a tory problem either it was true in the blair years too but hidden by their insane borrowing and pfi initiatives to make it seem they were doing more for the same money.
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
Truly reckless councils who spaff their money up the wall are a rarity. For a lot of them cost of adult social care makes up 50+% of what they spend and is rising each year, even with making efficiencies and cutting staff and other services
You're kidding yourself if you think the principal problem is politicians on local councils throwing money around - it happens, but is not the main reason the councils are struggling so much, and is just a far too easy explanation.
Council I was living in last year went bankrupt . It was slough....example of insanity the company I worked for was renting the second floor of the council building two more floors above for rent....they had only managed to rent out half of one...the companies lease ran out and they said to the council we need a rent reduction to stay from 300k a year to 200k a year...council said no it will be 450k from now on. Company said fuck off and moved out so now instead of 1.5 floors unrented they now have 2.5 floors unoccupied....this was before covid
Sounds bad. But most councils don't go bankrupt, even now (small praise, admittedly). It makes little difference which party controls a council because they are very constrained, and simply don't have a great many options. Those who try to get creative are among those that crash and burn.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
This is all very kind on the subject of 'because of', and reminded me of the great Henry Chadwick, who used to point out that people in antiquity really did go to war about prepositions ('ek' and 'en' as I recall), though whether they were Nestorians, Chalcedonians, Monophysites, Apollinarians or something else I cannot now recall.
But turning to the point; all solutions for growing the economy require to be implemented by governments that actually get elected. In our world the other sort of government doesn't exist.
The group of electors who want government to do significantly less and will vote for it is tiny, and SFAICS getting smaller. Listen to R4 Today for a week and count the times there are calls for further, greater and more costly government action and intervention; and balance that with the (Zero) voices calling for the state to do significantly less in any area whatsoever. This does not win elections in western Europe and it isn't going to start.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
BBC news is not a reliable source. You ought to know that
Roger is in advertising, you are surprised he hypes propaganda?
None of the main Media sources is reliable. Sky .. never wrong for long. GB news risible. ITV never watch BBc online possibly. My news comes from.the Times which I trust more than the others but its getting more bland and Sun like.....v worrying.
*No* single source of information is reliable. even (shock, horror!) PB!
Use many sources, but rate them according to their reliability in your view - and whether they all get their sources from the same input. If (say) the Times and the Guardian give similar information, it *may* be roughly near the truth - especially if they are reporting from different sources.
As an exercise for the reader: how do we *know* that the Russians are *losing* in Ukraine? (I think I could give a reasonable argument for this).
But going further: how do we *know* a war is actually going on in Ukraine? I've met a couple of refugees from it, but they may have been plants. And I haven't been to the area the so-called 'war' is allegedly going on in.
Well I know because I have a ukranian friend and was talking to her on voice when the air raid sirens went off. Proof enough for me when she had to sign off and scurry to a shelter...could she have faked the siren yes of course...did I believe she did hell no
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
Well, we really don't know. A lot depends on what the balance of trade is with that part of the world in 10 years time. Will imports from there increase (palm oil and EVs), or is Vietnam busting to import English Fizz?
The relationship of these countries to China is rather like that of Latin America to the USA. They might not like it much, but they are dominated by it.
Those trying to downplay CPTPP are almost all those who are committed to rejoining the EU and cannot seem to accept that joining a market that in 7 years will include 40% of the middle clases and will have expanded in membership is the future
It is being said that the UK joining is a real positive for the trading block as other countries follow UK and of course we still trade with the EU and hopefully in an improving relationship
This is not either or
The general trend over recent decades has been multiple trade blocs forming and a gradual diminution of tariff barriers. Generally I am a fan of this sort of globalisation, but it is a major factor in the de-industrialisation of our former manufacturing areas. Perhaps the net benefit to consumers outweighs it, but we do need to find new ways for people to earn a living.
If Parliament (aka the Tories) dish out some serious punishment to the clown, they might be able to draw some sort of a line under the era of the comedians. That, coupled with the significant advantage that FPTnP gives them, could put them back into the game.
Hence why Starmer consigned Corbyn into exile last week. Had he not done so and the Tories then cast out the clown, he could have been in real trouble.
In slight defence of the Tories on this one, Boris was PM less than a year ago. He remains someone with significant Member support and just 6 months ago could demonstrate at least 100 MPs wanted him in charge, even though he'd been forced to quit for being serially incompetent. He can proclaim all would have been well had be been left in charge, and it is not technically provable that is not the case.
Conversely Corbyn started as an old crank, with a genial air, and has finished as an old crank with a bitter air, but even after leading the party to historic disaster it's only 3+ years later that his path to remain as a Labour MP is definitively closed. Starmer ratcheted up the pressure and made changes incrementally for those years.
Put bluntly, the Tories are not yet in a position with voters or members that shitting on Boris (deservedly or not) comes without major consequences, unlike Starmer shitting on Corbyn. It's not that defending him would do less harm than not defending him, just that they cannot do either without plenty of harm.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I don't think Sunaks fightback has budged the polls much at all. People have already decided that it is time for a change.
I think some swingback likely, so Lab 42% Con 34% by the GE, but that delivers Labour a working majority.
I disagree
I think each positive thing he delivers on adds another cohort of voters (mainly from ex Tory DNV).
So Ireland was worth something. A sane budget. CPPPT. Every little counts.
But question is whether he can deliver enough items that will change enough minds. It’s an incremental strategy
I agree, but Sunak's sanity is relative to his predecessor Tories, not Starmer. Starmer and Sunak do have different offers and it's possible to prefer Sunak's while thinking either man is qualified to be PM in the way that Johnson and Truss weren't.
Nevertheless Starmer is sitting on 15% advantage in polls, which is landslide territory. Sunak has a mountain to climb and I don't think the signs are there now that he'll make it.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I am not committed to a fundamental version of Labour.
I voted for Lisa Nandy who said she wanted to break Corbyn as a man.
What I will never support is a man who has told Socialists to fuck off from the day after he was elected on a manifesto of uniting all wings of the Party which he has done the total opposite.
I think the red Tories on here underestimate the number of people who feel the same. I voted for Blair twice as did most on the left there are 000s of thousands who won't vote SKS who voted for Blair IMO.
I predict Labour on a lower overall turnout gets less than the 12.9m votes it got in 2017.
Only idiots or those not paying attention are taken in by Starmer.
That might be enough, mind.
Who are taken in by the Tories though?
I am taken in by Sunak.
As an individual politician, I am quite happy with Sunak myself. He seems a decent guy, reasonably down to Earth despite his now extraordinary wealth, and with a persuasive back story. He demeans himself at PMQs trying to replicate the Johnson playbook, and would be better trying to stick to the higher ground where he sounds more persuasive.
Of course my vote isn’t in play for the Tories, because I remember Brexit and Johnson and Truss and all the nasty politics and nutty idiots that come as part of the deal. But lots of voters will be paying less attention or be less troubled by all of that than I am.
The high stakes decision for Sunak arrives towards the end of this year or early next, when the opportunity to break with his right wind and stake a position closer to the Cameron ground arrives (I don’t know what it will be, but there will be one, or he can engineer one, if he wants). That would be a bold and brave potential masterstroke, but I am not convinced he has the experience or the ‘bottom’ to pull it off, or to even try.
The one thing that is for sure is that limping on to 2024 and hoping to pull off a miracle without having the pigeons already inside his coat isn’t going to work.
I think LAB will finish about 4 points ahead maybe 41-37 however with a reasonable recovery in Scotland say 20 seats that should give them a very small majority.
I think LAB will finish about 4 points ahead maybe 41-37 however with a reasonable recovery in Scotland say 20 seats that should give them a very small majority.
I;m still of the view that Labour will get a stonking majority. especially if Starmer develops a character.
The only thing that can stop it is Sunak suddenly developing a character.
Interestingly, developing a character seems alien to both.
I think LAB will finish about 4 points ahead maybe 41-37 however with a reasonable recovery in Scotland say 20 seats that should give them a very small majority.
I;m still of the view that Labour will get a stonking majority. especially if Starmer develops a character.
The only thing that can stop it is Sunak suddenly developing a character.
Interestingly, developing a character seems alien to both.
To me it is boring vs boring but one has thirteen years to defend
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
Good News! The new CPTPP deal might be worth 8p for every £100 in 10years time (according to BBC News).
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
BBC news is not a reliable source. You ought to know that
Roger is in advertising, you are surprised he hypes propaganda?
None of the main Media sources is reliable. Sky .. never wrong for long. GB news risible. ITV never watch BBc online possibly. My news comes from.the Times which I trust more than the others but its getting more bland and Sun like.....v worrying.
*No* single source of information is reliable. even (shock, horror!) PB!
Use many sources, but rate them according to their reliability in your view - and whether they all get their sources from the same input. If (say) the Times and the Guardian give similar information, it *may* be roughly near the truth - especially if they are reporting from different sources.
As an exercise for the reader: how do we *know* that the Russians are *losing* in Ukraine? (I think I could give a reasonable argument for this).
But going further: how do we *know* a war is actually going on in Ukraine? I've met a couple of refugees from it, but they may have been plants. And I haven't been to the area the so-called 'war' is allegedly going on in.
Well I know because I have a ukranian friend and was talking to her on voice when the air raid sirens went off. Proof enough for me when she had to sign off and scurry to a shelter...could she have faked the siren yes of course...did I believe she did hell no
Yep. And for avoidance of doubt, I know there's a war going on in Ukraine. I'm just pointing out the sort of b/s that leads to people thinking that the Earth is flat. Or Corbyn isn't an anti-Semite. Or Boris is a good person...
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed "GTTO".
Seeing as loads of Tories can switch seemlessly between supporting Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak, who not only offered quite different visions and policies, but also campaigned in their leadership elections against the policies of their predecessors, Tories covers a hell of a lot of political ground!
At this moment the polls say that several million former Tories can't do exactly that.
All politics is relative. Labour is, for many natural Tories both morally more impressive, and closer - if not very close - to One nation Toryism than the current party. Politics being relative, Labour could wreck that merely by getting morally and politically worse while the Tories stayed the same.
Only to weak-willed, lily-livered, turncoat types like yourself - who lack the courage of your own convictions.
To everyone else it's pretty clear you're getting sucked in by professional spin and a lack of confidence in yourself.
Your treason will not be forgotten.
Wow! I hope you are joking. If you are not you might need psychological assistance.
P.S. Political parties should not be loyal 'til I die football teams. if they do bad things like in the eras of Johnson or Corbyn, run for the hills.
With the need for an increased proportion of electric car sales, this will inevitably lead to the production of fewer petrol and diesel cars as manufacturers switch focus.
The much-anticipated ZEV mandate, which is now being consulted on, will require manufacturers to ensure 22 per cent of all new cars sold are electric by the start of next year, with this growing to 80 per cent in 2030.
We'll that's the end of cheap cars for the masses then. If manufacturers are up against quota limits, it won't be the luxury high end models getting the chop... but the affordable small electric car appears presently to be a mythical beast.
Apparently they are also enforcing quotas on vans, up to 70% by 2030. This is complete madness given that a electric van which carries an equal load to a typical diesel van and has a meaningful range doesn't exist, and won't exist unless they either make batteries much lighter or permit electric vehicles to have higher gross weights - the problem is that the battery absorbs too much of the the payload capacity. I used to work for a contracting firm which did the sort of essential stuff required to keep people supplied with water, electricity and the like - I often drove 300-400 miles a day in a lwb transit dropside loaded to the gunwales, and there simply isn't an electric vehicle out there with anything approaching the capability.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
Talking about AI - an understandably rather indignant academic discovering that the 'reviewer' of a paper of his got it done by AI which insisted that the author refer to completely mythical papers.
I appreciate that PB's viewing habits are limited to series X on Netflix or show Y on Disney+, but if you want to be reminded of when the BBC truly walked with men, you may be interested to know that the last two episodes of Edge of Darkness (the 1980's TV one) will be removed from iPlayer later tonight.
Comments
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Talking about sex education in schools, weren't you, the other day, BTW? There was also this report: slightly unfortunate headline:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/31/overhaul-of-sex-education-in-england-based-on-overblown-claims-say-teachers
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
who have written this paper on GPT4?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
And which says:
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better
So every day that the black swans stay in the swan house (like a duck house, only bigger and capable of breaking a man's arm) is a good day for the opposition parties.
Time for the GYM
There’s an entire corps of right wingers who delight in the idea that regardless of who’s actually in power in Westminster, the country is actually run by an elite of woke lefty liberal types. Why only this week Matt Goodwin has been at it.
Perhaps that’s the equivalent. People who are more ideologically comfortable claiming to be the underdogs than actually being in power (hard left) or accepting they really are in power (hard right).
1. Nothing much happens between now and GE: slow swing back, small Lab majority or Labour largest party
2. Black swan favouring government (like Labour implosion, hot war, another pandemic, robo attacks in Menorca or something): narrow Con win
3. One Sunak fuck up: massive Labour landslide
People do not spend money more wisely than governments, as you have illustrated well.
At the top end, people do not even spend the money so much as stash it away various 'investments' whose only result is to inflate the prices of said investments.
The economics of the right is build on a whole lot of erroneous assumptions whose proof is never evidenced. See also 'the national economy is like the household budget'.
heard today a reported comment from one of the top 10 GOP donors. I was speaking to the person he spoke to.
Comment was that he’s never seen so much money and organisational capability lined up behind one candidate (De Santis). He doesn’t think Trump can do it again - view was that he got lucky last time because no one took him seriously.
I have no idea whether this is accurate or not but pass it on as a data point for what it is worth
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely
many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can,
Though it might take a clever plan.
I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof,
Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof.
Assume we have a finite list,
Of primes, and that none have been missed.
Multiply them all together,
And add one, just to be clever.
The result will be a number,
That has no prime factors, oh wonder!
But every number has a prime,
That divides it, it’s just a matter of time.
So we’ve found a contradiction,
And our finite list needs eviction.
There must be infinitely many primes,
And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63147101
"We like and agree with everything Trump says and does, but it's all just a bit exhausing dealing with him" seems to be their current pitch, pre DeSantis officially launching, and I have trouble seeing how that will work even if they book every single ad on Fox News.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/twm_news/19667278230
I do accept that the most egregious examples aren't typical. That doesn't mean they are not concerning. And there's an element of MRDA here - the agenda is being driven by people who are invested in it. They would say criticism of it is wrong.
We are turning into a joke. A theme park. Perhaps we can call ourselves CPTPP 5. UK
That's got a nice Bauhaus ring about it
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
CON: 26% (+3)
LDM: 9% (-1)
RFM: 7% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via
@YouGov
, 29-30 Mar.
Changes w/ 21-22 Mar.
Unusual couple of days with Omnisis and YouGov going in completely different directions. But Techne almost stable and PeoplePolling small move to Con.
Conclusion: Last few days flat. Previous Lab slide and Con rise has now flattened.
Having said that, I also think the NEU are ideologically driven syndicalists who are antithetical to the cause of education ajd must be ground into the dirt. How to reconcile the two?
"as they can in theory"
There hangs a rather large issue. Imagine that there's some AI out there using PB's comments as a 'source' for their machine learning. "Turnips, trains and foreign food are the source of all happiness in life" would probably be its conclusion...
The relationship of these countries to China is rather like that of Latin America to the USA. They might not like it much, but they are dominated by it.
Chat-GTPTPP
But, I think that will last about 5 minutes.
Or just by spending more time in the district. (Or state, for senators, if it is a small state. Iowa's Charles Grassley visits every county in Iowa, at least once a year.)
(That's less true than it was a decade or so ago, as our politics have become more nationalized.)
Am I right to assume something similar can happen in the UK? And, if so, how much would that help the Conservatives in the next election? One or two seats? Ten or twenty? Or how much?
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less. Why central tax is at an all time high but services are going down hill. Keep your thieving hands off my earnings
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
It comes down to the quality of the campaigning v. sickness of the Tories.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Which doesn't sound like the average government.
So why do governments tend to imitate the worst individuals in financial decisions rather than the best ?
Politicians of any colour are all the same they throw money around like a drunken sailor with no actual care for if it improves anything for most people.
I think some swingback likely, so Lab 42% Con 34% by the GE, but that delivers Labour a working majority.
You're kidding yourself if you think the principal problem is politicians on local councils throwing money around - it happens, but is not the main reason the councils are struggling so much, and is just a far too easy explanation.
April Fool's Day is TOMORROW.
https://twitter.com/FCDOGovUK/status/1641852678106906630
To everyone else it's pretty clear you're getting sucked in by professional spin and a lack of confidence in yourself.
Your treason will not be forgotten.
Personally I see is a social good that we treat our elderly as useful members of society.
That might be enough, mind.
Exactly what each is better at varies over time and circumstance, and is where debate is needed rather than the childish one is always better than the other.
Hence why Starmer consigned Corbyn into exile last week. Had he not done so and the Tories then cast out the clown, he could have been in real trouble.
I think each positive thing he delivers on adds another cohort of voters (mainly from ex Tory DNV).
So Ireland was worth something. A sane budget. CPPPT. Every little counts.
But question is whether he can deliver enough items that will change enough minds. It’s an incremental strategy
LibDem MPs tend to work harder in the constituency, as their vote is more precarious, and thus can build up a large following which then dissapates after they leave, eg Alan Beith in Berwick and Simon Hughes in Bermondsey.
I think that there is less pork barrel politics in the UK, than in the US, so the opportunity for MPs there is less.
It is being said that the UK joining is a real positive for the trading block as other countries follow UK and of course we still trade with the EU and hopefully in an improving relationship
This is not either or
Use many sources, but rate them according to their reliability in your view - and whether they all get their sources from the same input. If (say) the Times and the Guardian give similar information, it *may* be roughly near the truth - especially if they are reporting from different sources.
As an exercise for the reader: how do we *know* that the Russians are *losing* in Ukraine? (I think I could give a reasonable argument for this).
But going further: how do we *know* a war is actually going on in Ukraine? I've met a couple of refugees from it, but they may have been plants. And I haven't been to the area the so-called 'war' is allegedly going on in.
But turning to the point; all solutions for growing the economy require to be implemented by governments that actually get elected. In our world the other sort of government doesn't exist.
The group of electors who want government to do significantly less and will vote for it is tiny, and SFAICS getting smaller. Listen to R4 Today for a week and count the times there are calls for further, greater and more costly government action and intervention; and balance that with the (Zero) voices calling for the state to do significantly less in any area whatsoever. This does not win elections in western Europe and it isn't going to start.
Conversely Corbyn started as an old crank, with a genial air, and has finished as an old crank with a bitter air, but even after leading the party to historic disaster it's only 3+ years later that his path to remain as a Labour MP is definitively closed. Starmer ratcheted up the pressure and made changes incrementally for those years.
Put bluntly, the Tories are not yet in a position with voters or members that shitting on Boris (deservedly or not) comes without major consequences, unlike Starmer shitting on Corbyn. It's not that defending him would do less harm than not defending him, just that they cannot do either without plenty of harm.
Nevertheless Starmer is sitting on 15% advantage in polls, which is landslide territory. Sunak has a mountain to climb and I don't think the signs are there now that he'll make it.
Of course my vote isn’t in play for the Tories, because I remember Brexit and Johnson and Truss and all the nasty politics and nutty idiots that come as part of the deal. But lots of voters will be paying less attention or be less troubled by all of that than I am.
The high stakes decision for Sunak arrives towards the end of this year or early next, when the opportunity to break with his right wind and stake a position closer to the Cameron ground arrives (I don’t know what it will be, but there will be one, or he can engineer one, if he wants). That would be a bold and brave potential masterstroke, but I am not convinced he has the experience or the ‘bottom’ to pull it off, or to even try.
The one thing that is for sure is that limping on to 2024 and hoping to pull off a miracle without having the pigeons already inside his coat isn’t going to work.
The only thing that can stop it is Sunak suddenly developing a character.
Interestingly, developing a character seems alien to both.
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
https://impakter.com/gpt-4-what-is-the-worlds-most-advanced-ai-companion-capable-of/
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
P.S. Political parties should not be loyal 'til I die football teams. if they do bad things like in the eras of Johnson or Corbyn, run for the hills.
The Government’s Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate (ZEV) will put yearly restrictions on car manufacturers on the proportion of petrol cars they can sell, in a bid to drive up electric vehicle use and hit net zero targets.
With the need for an increased proportion of electric car sales, this will inevitably lead to the production of fewer petrol and diesel cars as manufacturers switch focus.
The much-anticipated ZEV mandate, which is now being consulted on, will require manufacturers to ensure 22 per cent of all new cars sold are electric by the start of next year, with this growing to 80 per cent in 2030.
We'll that's the end of cheap cars for the masses then. If manufacturers are up against quota limits, it won't be the luxury high end models getting the chop... but the affordable small electric car appears presently to be a mythical beast.
Apparently they are also enforcing quotas on vans, up to 70% by 2030. This is complete madness given that a electric van which carries an equal load to a typical diesel van and has a meaningful range doesn't exist, and won't exist unless they either make batteries much lighter or permit electric vehicles to have higher gross weights - the problem is that the battery absorbs too much of the the payload capacity.
I used to work for a contracting firm which did the sort of essential stuff required to keep people supplied with water, electricity and the like - I often drove 300-400 miles a day in a lwb transit dropside loaded to the gunwales, and there simply isn't an electric vehicle out there with anything approaching the capability.
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
https://twitter.com/BauwensRobin/status/1640317530144223232?cxt=HHwWgMC98cqGysMtAAAA
Talking about AI - an understandably rather indignant academic discovering that the 'reviewer' of a paper of his got it done by AI which insisted that the author refer to completely mythical papers.
If you rush you can see both. Thank me later
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00v5gw9/edge-of-darkness-series-1-5-northmoor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00v5gzw/edge-of-darkness-series-1-6-fusion?seriesId=b048vwd8