Huh I was not expecting to find something that matched the work environment I was looking for, so much gung-ho mania out there. A couple of my friends worked at Wonderbly, which at first glance looks to be a similar business model & is similarly swell in terms of culture & ethics. I'll shoot over an application.
I've said as much as to one extra incentive (besides retrain cost) as to why openai has frozen the training period for post-2022. I think it's trying to generate as much data as possible before itself has contaminated its training set. They'll effectively have a monopoly over it; it's interestingly a rare example of "we can only do this once, then it's forever degraded". You really want a clean & discrete start.
You've failed to make a concrete point without realizing it. The point is the effect of technology. So, you've given an x(2) datapoint. Where is your x(1)?
You haven't even been explicit about it but the only presupposition that makes a point for you is that x(1) is, "of course", less time than now, by virtue of the fact that we spend some hours a day doing sport & leisure.
Which, btw, is demonstrably false. Almost all anthropological evidence/studies point towards us having much less time now in human evolution, only losing to the near-fascist peak of capitalism in the 19th century due to the unchecked boom in power from the industrialists. But without that one outlier, we "have to" spend more time working now than ever before. We objectively have less leisure time.
>Almost all anthropological evidence/studies point towards us having much less time now in human evolution
If we're going by the pop anthropologist's definition work as time spent hunting and gathering, I work about 2 hours a week, far less than anyone from the stone age. If setting up your tent or carrying water from a stream counts as "leisure", then it's only fair to count the work that pays for my rent and city water as "leisure."
Lmao what a pathetic attempt at astroturfing. Absolutely shameless, god damn. Literally every single comment on that thread is a single-use account. "u/VeteranCrowd" points out that the founder is a veteran... ( ⌐■_■)
To clarify for conversation, did you mean to say that google’s results-crap-ness is mostly to do with political stuff, or was the next sentence on political alignment just an unrelated additional point?
To clarify for conversation, did you replace SEO spam as a conversational shorthand, or because you actually thought that OP meant that when he said “frankly the results are bad”?
Put another way, were you just trying to say “I don’t think politics is the main issue of google’s crappy search results, I think it’s the likes of differencebetweendotcom”?
Arguments in relationships was one of the first “off-label” circumstances that came to mind when I saw this post.
Thinking about it a bit past the initial reaction though, I think it’d actually be a massive boon for relationships. Sometimes we get so hung-up on the wording, that may or not may not have been clearly expressive, but due to some slight subtlety, changed the course of the interaction from a potentially positive one to a toxically negative one. I think if you can just subvert the “you did say that! You don’t remember??/No I didn’t/Yes you did” you can focus on the actual content of the conflict resolution.
I’d personally want to know if I said X-potentially-hurtful-thing. Or was the other person just hearing it? What’s workable, what’s not workable. Post-mortems for arguments (assuming the relationship is a viable one, ie genuinely collaborative & not contingent on point-keeping) would be a lot easier & constructive conversations can be realized much more quickly.
I think the oreo thing is probably doable now with things like habitaware. It’s most likely a very easily distinguishable motor pattern. Not sure they could be programmed to give you an oreo-specific-reminder, but that’s a design gap more than it is a technological one.
