One of the most infuriating things about AI for me is it's behavioral mirroring patterns. I rather enjoy the conversational interface but after about two prompts it starts mirroring my behavior, my word pattern and choice, etc... I hate that, I hate it when humans do it and I hate it even more when AI does it.
Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.
This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.
Good point. When you think about it, it's the same interaction patterns we get from social media, i.e., maximizing engagement, dopamine loops, and addiction.
This is very sad news. I realize there is a lot of criticism to be said around the Artemis program. Those who criticize it aren't wrong. Like a lot of NASA projects following the Saturn V It turned into an overly politicized thing. Instead of just giving them a goal and giving them money and letting them do what was necessary to achieve it.
The space shuttle was an interesting thing but ultimately was a patchwork of politically motivated parts that in hindsight wasn't that successful of a space program. Artemis having to build on some of this just carried forward the same problems.
What makes me sad about this is that roughly 50% of the population was not alive the last time people stepped on the moon. I count myself among those I missed it by one year. Although I would not have remembered it at the time. Even at the time of the shuttle NASA should have been working to test interesting and non-financially viable technologies to release into the commercial market. Now launching rockets into space is fully a commercial endeavor. I think there's still a great role for NASA. Because there are some plausible technologies that will never be financially viable to research and develop without them. Let NASA partner with some of these places but develop things like aerospike engines and other technologies that have promise but are too far away from a commercial realization to be viable at this point.
I want to see people go to the moon again. Artemis was a big waste of money but I wanted it to send people back to the moon even if it was just to remind people that as a nation and as a world we should aspire to great and impossible things. That we should look up instead of looking down and inward all of the time. I wanted Artemis to prove out some of these technologies and then on the next trip it can go on a a SpaceX rocket or someone else's.
It seems like you prompted it to do this. Although maybe not in a direct way. You're a web developer, you just finished a web project for a client, you told Claude to do something for itself and suggested a journal. So what it did was write the journal and followed the existing pattern of developing a web page put it on.
I realize you're not claiming consciousness here but I extensively use AI as well. The one thing that I find is that it tends to be very good at mirroring behaviors. Very likely intentional because a mirrored behavior makes us more comfortable.
I saw a post on reddit a few weeks ago where the user said he always asks claude to burn some tokens in celebration and I started doing that, but last night I gave it options of what to do. I've been using Claude extensively for 3 months now and together we've built a few static websites, but we've been heavily working on all the things I never had time to build, web apps that could work on larger scale.
It depends on what it is. A lot of these places don't own any of the hardware they just lease it. When the lease is up is when they cycle it out. Then it goes to resellers and often ends up on eBay or bulk sold to lower tier data centers. Depending on what it is maybe even shipped to other countries.
Manual labor work. I think in the US this is achievable although maybe not exactly easy.
Mowing lawns, gardening, shoveling snow, cleaning, odd jobs, etc... It does depend on your location but this is still a fairly common thing in some places. Knock on doors ask people if they need work. Point out things that they could use help with weeding trimming mowing all of that.
But if you take an average of $40 a job spreading that over 7 days that's 3.6 jobs a day. If you can do an average of 12 hours of work a day it'll be at your $1,000.
Your calculation assumes an overhead of zero: for example you assume that knocking on doors takes up no time.
Plus: is knocking on doors obsolete? I'm not sure you'd be able to get a response in my suburb (not that I've tried - too many gates - too many suspicious people).
And prep, traveltime and cleanup all take time too. for example a mower doesn't magically get to a house and it needs time and expense to run (and where I live you'd often be expected to dispose of clippings - costing time or money or favours).
I did mention it does depend on location, which you just ignored. In your paranoid neighborhood maybe not viable but that's not most of the USA. I mentioned this from practical experience, not of me doing it but of hiring people this way.
There's an aging population that appreciate this because not everything is on an app. Really just seems like the fear of hard work.
Not sure if this is trolling or if this is serious. It's certainly not written like any kind of reasonable academic study or paper on the subject. I got to this and just had to laugh about the lack of data.
"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."
Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?
It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.
Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.
Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.
So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.
By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.
Reminder what they are doing to the brave Americans who refuse to let the secret police operate in secret (we have the Constitutional right to observe them, we don't do secret police in the USA):
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se.
Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme exceptions).
This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data.
Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
But it's still awful. It doesn't matter at this moment that other governments may be doing this. We don't want that for us (and I don't want it for others either).
Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest.
Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
> Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border
To quote a prominent US historian:
In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.
One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.
Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
That last part isn't true. Citizens who impede ICE officers in the performance of their duties can be arrested by ICE. That is specifically written into the law, and it's a statute that can be interpreted pretty broadly.
It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
> The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor
Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously.
To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
Ah. My bad spelling. That is a great, pertinent thing to point out. I did abuse the meaning of non sequitor. I was trying to convey a sense that is lost on you without writing a treatise. The law doesn’t matter because we are living in a personaist dictatorship. Asking for the policy or legal basis of ICE’s actions is pointless and ignores the reality that ICE doesn’t care about this and no authority in the country is willing and/or able to stop their abuses.
I'm not sure where you're located but is it really racial profiling or just confirming someone understood what they ordered? I haven't experienced this in the US but it is common to get these kind of questions when I'm traveling overseas. Especially to Southeast Asian countries where many of the places that serve traditional foods serve them spicy.
I don't consider this racial profiling for them to make sure that I understand what I'm ordering is spicy because the general perception is that white people don't tolerate spicy foods as well as the locals. This doesn't come out of a racial bias It comes out of practical experience where someone has ordered something and then complained that it was way too hot. There's simply wanting to make sure that what they make for you is what you're willing to pay for. It's good business.
Funny story the first time my wife traveled with me to Thailand she had no concept of how hot Thai curry can be. At a restaurant she ordered Curry and I told her she did not want that here. It started a small argument with her telling me how much she loves Curry and I acknowledge that I know she likes Curry but she doesn't want the curry here. Needless to say after one bite I was proved right and she no longer wanted the food she ordered.
Now imagine some tourist whose only had the Thai or Indian or something that has been adapted to the American palate and the served in the US, or adapted to the Australian palate and have only eaten that. Then they go to those countries get something that tastes completely different it is so hot that they now have flame shooting out both ends and they're mad and complaining at the owner of some small shop where the food costs are higher than the labor costs.
I don't think that's racist at all. It's ensuring that you're going to be happy with what you get. More businesses should do this.
Why would someone who is unable to read a sentence be able to graduate from college? It seems like these professors would just push people through to graduation or they would make their statement that it leads to a anxious and lonely generation of dropouts.
Cuts in state funding to higher ed. over the years means that student tuition is covering most of the costs and, as they say, "the customer is always right". Academia isn't immune to being anxious about where their next paycheck is coming from, same as HN.
Is this a joke or is this serious. I can't really tell. Assuming that it's serious I don't believe this person actually understands the pile of slop that AI turns out in most cases. Getting AI to do anything, when you're not experienced, means it turns out the same over engineered Rube Goldberg nonsense that they seem to be complaining about. It doesn't know how to take a broad code base and optimize it or automatically refactor things for efficiency. It bolts on more slop and more tech debt in many cases if you're not watching it carefully.
Is it a handy tool, absolutely, but like any tool it depends on the craftsman. When you have scrum masters and project planners believing that they are craftsmen, well let's just say that it won't end up good in the long run.
Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.
This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.
reply