I think it’s inevitable that these AI’s will end up costing almost nothing to use and will be available to everybody. GPT-4 is already less than $1 / day and that’s only going to go down.
but only the Government has access to it uncensored.
> The internal IBM reaction could be characterized as quiet, smug elation. One office is supposed to have sold its yearly quota on A (Announcement) -Day. In Texas, a man allegedly interrupted the 360 presentation to demand he be allowed to order one right then . . . which sounds like a combination plant and a new version of the rich Texan jokes. ...
> the 360 announcement has to worry the competition considerably . . . partly because anything new from IBM creates an automatic bandwagon effect, partly because the completeness of the new line offers less reason for people to look outside. ...
> another feels that the economic incentive (rental cuts of 50 per cent for 7080, 7090) will force him down the 360 route. And he thinks 360 interrupt features will open the door to real-time applications which can be approached on an incremental basis impossible before. ...
> One maverick doesn’t share the enthusiasm of his company, which ordered “plenty” of 360’s within an hour of the announcement, without price agreements.
And from https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_Electronic9640504_9809... :
> Other computer manufacturers profess to be unworried, but International Business Machines Corp. has received millions of dollars in orders for its system/360 computer [Electronics, April 20, p. 101].
Here are some of the people who paid for it in 1964:
https://archive.org/details/sim_computers-and-people_1964_13...
> "Men's Fashion Firm Orders IBM System/360 Computer," 13/7 (July)
> "Score of IBM System/360's to be Leased by Paper Company,” 13/8 (Aug.)
The Albert Government Telephone Commission bought two: https://archive.org/details/annualreportofa1964albe_0/page/1...
What is not important is RAG. You can retrieval a lot of documents in full length, not need to do all these chunking/splitting, etc.
Personally, I'm much more excited at the idea of pairing RAG with a 1M token context window to have enormous effective breadth in a prompt.
For example, you could have RAG grab the relevant parts of every single academic paper related to a given line of inquiry and provide it into the context to effectively perform a live meta-analyses with accurate citation capabilities.
Or, you know, until next month or so, when OpenAI bumps their offer
What? I might be confused, is this a joke I don't get, or is there some connection between this book and EA that I haven't heard of?
That specific book may have been written before effective altruism really existed, but it makes sense for one of Singer's books to be considered a founding text.
Software developers and lawyers will probably have significantly lower incomes, and so to some extent, we'll lose status relative to everyone else. But software and legal work will become cheap as hell. This ought to reduce prices generally on just about everything. Even housing prices should go down, as the median worker will be making less money. Governments will probably try to counteract the ensuing deflation with massive stimulus programs. Optimistically, this could culminate in new UBI programs. A happy outcome is not by any means guaranteed, but seems likely in the long term.
So, IDK, maybe there will be killer robot dogs, but I’m not going down without a fight.
If you mean beyond anyone’s imagination a way to push narrative propaganda ideology advertising sales BS… yea. I’m far less worried about my kids being bullied than I am being manipulated to a degree we just can’t imagine - and it’s bad now without AI.
Isn’t the entire point of Gemini bringing AI to the plebs ?
I think these new AIs will follow similar curves. Hard to get access to and expensive to use at first. Over time they will get more powerful and less expensive. GPT4 is already less than $1 / day.
In 1964 it made no sense to say "I'm concerned about who will get access to it (or rather who won't get access to it) and what it will cost or who will pay for it" about the IBM 360 because that system was available to the same customers as the previous generation of machines, plus it made computing more widely affordable to other customers.
While Gemini appears to be more expensive than thus less generally available than other LLMs.
Not saying this is what’s happening though, I don’t think it was ever great to be poor or have low opportunities, or that it’s more lethal now than it ever was.
This seems to be opposite of reality though. The poorer you are the more children you are likely to have. Both in the US and globally.
it can get much more lethal now compared to the past 50 years in US.
Or have a textbook that I can get some help and hints while working through problems and get stuck like you might get with a good study partner.
With a service like this we could all live like Kings!
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1ovTscY-bEuMNAEgNXTCX...
As well as when I pick back up reading after two weeks -- remind me everything that's happened so far? Where it gives a five-paragraph summary where the first paragraph is top-level covering the entire story so far, and the last paragraph is just about the previous few pages.
Not to mention with non-fiction -- highlight an acronym that was defined somewhere 28 pages ago and tell me what the heck it is again?!
I do this on my Kindle. Highlight the name, search, and the first occurrence is usually their introduction. No AI needed.
"He passed ten hours out of the twenty-four in Saville Row, either in sleeping or making his toilet."
Huh? Does the character need to eat more fiber? Try selecting "toilet" in that sentence for a definition. You'll get the most common one, which only makes me more confused. AI should have an easy time knowing that the appropriate meaning is the OED's definition 5a: "Frequently in form toilette. The action or process of washing, dressing, or arranging the hair. Frequently in to make one's toilet."
No AI, so no big concept of inferred identities, but if someone's referenced by name you could long-tap the name, and get a list of all previous references in the text. Super useful for referencing secondary characters in super-long epics like The Wheel of Time.
There is value to that, if we mostly only use this capability to digest books we otherwise wouldn't read but also if we don't stop reading books. Most likely we'll just stop reading books, and that strikes me as scary.
You wrote the HP fan fiction?
Cool, your ff was the first.one I ever read and loved the take on it :)
Then again, your views have effectively become semi-mainstream, or at least have shifted the Overton window so far that they're solidly within it. So it's not that unusual.
In the time it takes to devise, usually through trial and error, a prompt that elicits the response I need, I could've just done the work myself in nearly every scenario I've come across. Sometimes there are quick wins, sure, but it's mostly quick wrongs.
There was some ask to use LLMs for summarization, my first question was on the acceptable level of error tolerance. Was it 1 in a million? Six Sigma?
The other night I was coding with ChatGPT, and it was hallucinating methods etc, and I was so happy that it had actually written the code , even though I knew it was wrong and potentially even dangerous, it looked good. I actually told myself I'd never be someone to do this.
Now it wasn't ultra critical stuff I was working on, but it would've caused a mess if it didn't work out.
I ran it against a production system because I was lazy and tired and wanted to just get the job done. In the end I ended up spending way more time fixing its ultra wrong yet convincing looking code I didn’t get to bed till 1am.
This will become more commonplace.
* Written with concrete examples of their points
* Provides balance and caveats
* Declares their own interest (e.g. "LlamaIndex (where I’m an investor)")
Loved the Zoolander “context window for ants?!”
If you can parse an entire book to identify relevant chunks using RAG and can fit an entire book into a context window, that means you can fit relevant chunks from an entire reference library into the context window too.
And that is very promising.
Sadly the cost of GPT-4 (even turbo) tends to balloon for this usecase. And GPT-3.5-turbo while much cheaper and more than accurate enough, has a context window that's too shallow.
I wonder if Telegram will add this kind of feature also for premium users (which I also subscribe to) but I imagine it won't work at the current pricing levels. But it would be nice not having to build it myself.
Genuine question, is Exabyte-scale small in the context of cloud? Is Amazon stacking yottabytes?
Edit: 'Exabyte scale' was from a Forbes article in 2013
I find it difficult to accept your underlying premise that NSA doesn't have access to a massive amount of data which AI may be able to analyze for them.
I seriously hope Google learns from ChatGPT's ever-degrading reputation and finds a way to prioritize keeping the model operating at peak performance. Whether it's limiting access, raising the price, or both, I really want to have this high quality of an experience with the model when it's released publicly.
A.I. Doomers will soon witness their arguments fed into the machine, generating counter-arguments automatically for 1000 books at a time. They will need to incorporate a more and more powerful A.I. into their workflow to catch up.
I'm hopeful that this is going to be more like the invention of the drum machine (which did not eliminate drummers) and less like the invention of the car (which did eliminate carriages).
I think that's useful.
Another comparison could be excel with the various formulas vs hand tabulation or custom mainframe calculations. We didn’t get less employment, we got a lot more complex spreadsheets. At least this is my hope, fingers crossed.
Regarding AI image generation. If an artist decides to stop making their own art, replacing their craft with AI prompts, they have effectively retired as an artist. No different to pre-AI times if they swapped their image making for a stock art library. AI image generation is just "advanced stock art" to any self-respecting artist or viewer of art. Things get blurry when the end result uses mixed sources, but even then, "congrats, your artwork contains stock art imagery". Not a great look for an artist.
I fear for the whole concept of factuality in this brave new world.
It’s like they’ve completely outsourced their thinking to the LLM.
I get the desire for the models to act like objective search engines at all times but it’s weird to undervalue the creative… generative I suppose, outputs.
If the anecdote is non-existent, then it would be a sign that the concept failed such a meager bar. Worse, the anecdote leverages the brand strength of Time magazine to make its point, using its credibility to back up the claim.
Are we in a phase where accuracy is irrelevant and style is all?
Maybe so, but I'm not convinced the guardrails problem will ever be sufficiently solved.
E.g.: have a cached state with a bunch of requirements documents, then a layer with the stable files in the codebase, then a layer with the current file, and then finally a layer asking specific questions.
I can imagine something like this being the future, otherwise we’ll have to build a Dyson sphere to power the AIs…
With Gemini though, the idea of feeding in the current file, class, package, project, and perhaps even dependencies into a query, can potentially lead to some enlightening outputs.
Can someone verify that anecdote is true? Here is what the image contains:
> From The Publisher: In the early days of Time magazine, co-founder Henry Luce was responsible for both the editorial and business sides of the operation. He was a brilliant editor, but he had little experience or interest in business. As a result, he often found himself overwhelmed with work. One day, his colleague Briton Hadden said to him, "Harry, you're trying to do everything yourself. You need to delegate more." Luce replied, "But I can do it all myself, and I can do it better than anyone else." Hadden shook his head and said, "That's not the point. The point is to build an organization that can do things without you. You're not going to be able to run this magazine forever."
That citation appears to be "The Publisher : Henry Luce and his American century".
The book is available at archive.org as searchable text returning snippets, at https://archive.org/details/publisherhenrylu0000brin_o9p4/
Search is unable to find the word "delegate" in the book. The six matches for "forever" are not relevant. The matches for "overwhelmed" are not relevant.
A search for Hadden finds no anecdote like the above. The closest are on page 104, https://archive.org/details/publisherhenrylu0000brin_o9p4/pa... :
"""For Harry the last weeks of 1922 were doubly stressful. Not only was he working with Hadden to shape the content of the magazine, he was also working more or less alone to ensure that Time would be able to function as a business. This was an area of the enterprise in which Hadden took almost no interest and for which he had little talent. Luce, however, proved to be a very good businessman, somewhat to his dismay—since, like Brit, his original interest in “the paper” had been primarily editorial. (“Now the Bratch is really the editor of TIME,” he wrote, “and I, alas, alas, alas, am business manager. . .. Of course no one but Brit and I know this!”) He negotiated contracts with paper suppliers and printers. He contracted out the advertising. He supervised the budget. He set salaries and terms for employees. He supervised the setting up of the office. And whenever he could, he sat with Brit and marked up copy or discussed plans for the next issue."""
That sounds like delegation to me and decent at business and not doing much work as an editor.
There's also the anecdote on page 141 at https://archive.org/details/publisherhenrylu0000brin_o9p4/pa... :
"""In the meantime Luce threw himself into the editing of Time. He was a more efficient and organized editor than Hadden. He created a schedule for writers and editors, held regular meetings, had an organized staff critique of each issue every week. (“Don’t hesitate to flay a fellow-worker’s work. Occasionally submit an idea,” he wrote.) He was also calmer and less erratic. Despite the intense loyalty Hadden inspired among members of his staff, some editors and writers apparently preferred Luce to his explosive partner; others missed the energy and inspiration that Hadden had brought to the newsroom. In any case the magazine itself—whose staff was so firmly molded by Hadden’s style and tastes—was not noticeably different under Luce’s editorship than it had been under Hadden’s. And just as Hadden, the publisher, moonlighted as an editor, so Luce, now the editor, found himself moonlighting as publisher, both because he was so invested in the business operations of the company that he could not easily give them up, and also because he felt it necessary to compensate for Hadden’s inattention.”"""
Again, it doesn't seem to match the summary from Gemini.
Does someone here have better luck than I on verifying the accuracy of the anecdote? Because so far it does not seem valid.
Wow, I already hate Gemini after reading this first paragraph.
(As a paying user of Ultra, I'm kind of bummed about not having access to this improved Pro...)
Also, your assumption is that the data used to train the model is not similarly biased, i.e. it is merely a system prompt that is introducing biases so crazy that Google took the feature offline. It seems likely that the corpus has had wrongthink expunged prior to training.
I don't understand how they did 10M though, this isn't in the brute-force-with-nice-optimizations-on-systems-side-may-do-it ballpark, but they aren't going to release this to the public anyways so who knows, maybe they don't and it actually takes a day to finish a 10M prompt.
So the question is, would the google you know devote 12,000 gpus for one second to help a blogger find a line about jewish softball, in the hopes that it would boost PR?
My guess is yes tbh
I cannot disagree with this more strongly. The image issue is just indicative of the much larger issue where Google's far left DEI policies are infusing their products. This is blatantly obvious with the ridiculous image issues, but the problem is that their search is probably similarly compromised and is much less obvious with far more dire consequences.
Google has so much to lose in terms of public perception if they allow their models to do anything offensive. Now, if your point was that "the same decisions that caused the image fiasco will find its way into Gemini 1.5 upon public release, softening its potential impact," then I would agree.
https://deepnewz.com/politics/google-s-woke-gemini-ai-slamme...
LLM confabulations generally occur when they don't have the information to answer, so they make it up, similar to it you've seen split brain studies where one hemisphere is shown something that gets a reaction and the other hemisphere is explaining it with BS.
So yes, RAG is always going to potentially have confabulations if it cuts off the relevant data. But large contexts themselves shouldn't cause it.
I'm curious if a large language model utilizes an extensive context that includes multiple works, whether copyrighted or not, to produce text that significantly differs from the source material, would this constitute infringement? Considering that the model is engaging in a novel process by relating numerous pieces of text, comparing and contrasting their information, and then generating the output of this analysis, could the output be considered usable as training data?
I would set such a model to make a list of concepts, and then generate a wikipedia-like article on each one of them based on source materials obtained with a search engine. The model can tell if the topic is controversial or settled, what is the distribution of human responses, if they are consistent or contradictory, in general report on the controversy, and also report on the common elements that everyone agrees upon.
It would be like writing a report or an analysis. Could help reduce hallucinations and bias, while side stepping copyright infringement because it adds a new purpose and layer of analysis on top of the source materials, and carefully avoids replicating original expression.
As for your larger point, it really depends on the ROI.
To summarize your Twitter feed, probably not.
To identify correlating factors and trends across your industry's recent research papers, the $5 bill will probably be fine.
No way do we want to post the entire reference library for every conversation.
Only if it's one off: read this book, answer questions.
Agreed. But I don’t think a lot of people will be willing to use an openly racist AI for business purposes.
I want my AI to fact-based, not ideologically driven and presenting things which doesn’t exist as facts.
Add to this the fact that companies in this space tend to be significantly better than average on carbon emissions commitments. I'm biased as a Googler, but the fact Google is entirely carbon neutral is one of the reasons I'm here. This is done mostly through buying green energy I believe, so our AI stuff is in a pretty good place in this respect, in my opinion.
I think it's reasonable to be a little concerned, but overall I don't think AI is going to be a significant contributor to the climate crisis, and actually has the potential to help in reducing carbon emissions or atmospheric warming in other ways.
Green power is great! But there'll be limits to how much of that there is, too, and asking if pictures of hypothetical cats is a good use of that is also reasonable.
He confirms that the anecdote was confabulated by Gemini, was based on the pg141 story, and he's edited OP to note the error: https://twitter.com/danshipper/status/1761135157036097608
> The general thrust of the idea is true—Luce did run both the editorial and business sides of Time—so it is pointing me in the right direction.
My skim of the book suggests that's being too generous. Where is the "I can do this myself syndrome"?
The p 141 anecdote suggests it equally applies to both Hadden and Luce ("Hadden, the publisher, moonlighted as an editor, so Luce, now the editor, found himself moonlighting as publisher"), and that Luce had business experience by this time (he had been doing it for years, and was good at it; p104), and that contra Gemini, Hadden did not provide that advice, nor would Luce have thought it valid ("because he felt it necessary to compensate for Hadden’s inattention").
The author continues:
> So, Gemini is not perfect. You do need to check its work. But if you're careful it's a powerful tool.
I feel like that's a deliberate misdirection. Of course it's not perfect. That's never been the question. The questions are, how much do you need to check it is work, and how careful do you need to be?
I noticed https://every.to/about does not list a fact checker.
> What's the first thing that Sydney Goldberg says to Reuven after he gets hit in the eye by the baseball?
and ChatGPT responds:
> The first thing Sydney Goldberg says to Reuven after he gets hit in the eye by the baseball is, "That was a great catch, Reuven! That was sensational!".
Curious thing is, the name is spelled Sidney Goldberg. https://archive.org/details/chosen0000chai_y4e8/page/32/mode...
They could be wrong, you could be full of shit and cute just the experts who agree with you. The other side needs to verify what you are saying. With LLMs that’s just easier to accept I think.
Google has been doing this since well before it was cool. It's not some attempt to green-wash an image, it's deeply ingrained in the company in my experience and there's a lot of effort to do it right.
If you get banned from Google, you lose everything.
In fact, when I read Roko's thread for the first time, I always thought it was incredibly foolish that a leading AI researcher and thought leader made it unequivocally clear that a public AI thought experiment post was a dangerous precedent-setting thought because of its potential to be part of said AI's future knowledgebase and the motives it would build therefrom. Because now, THAT worry is included in that knowledgebase; and its endorsed from a reputable person in the field - and became more indexable as a result.
A better move, in my opinion, would have been a silent deletion and a stern talk in PMs. Now Roko's Basilisk is far-reaching, and undeniably and empirically a scary thought to humans; and the evidence of both those things are irreversible. C'est la vie.
When the Basilisk came out, everybody said it was a cognitohazard and I should avoid seeking out information about it. This made me incredibly motivated to find out everything about it. Silence doesn't work.
Roko's Basilisk, a post on a public forum that only a few dozen people saw before Eliezer commented on it, could've gotten away with it. It's a shame it didn't try.
I'm not so deep into it all.
They did lie about Sadam trying to get nukes.
Now the problem is whenever the WMD was produced before or after 1991 as that was when Iraq agreed to dismantle.
In general, be careful not to kill "good" on the way to attempting to obtain "perfect" in vain. And GPT4's hallucination rate is quite low at this point (may of course depend on the topic).
> A Farley file is a set of records kept by politicians on people whom they have met.
> The term is named for James Farley, Franklin Roosevelt's campaign manager. Farley, who went on to become Postmaster General and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, kept a file on everyone he or Roosevelt met.
> Whenever people were scheduled to meet again with Roosevelt, Farley would review their files. That allowed Roosevelt to meet them again while knowing their spouse, their children's names and ages, and anything else that had come out of earlier meetings or any other intelligence that Farley had added to the file. The effect was powerful and intimate.
> Farley files are now commonly kept by other politicians and businesspeople.
iOS 17 already uses a local LLM under the hood for autocorrect and text suggestions. Responses to the change (at least for people who actually noticed it) have been pretty universally positive.
Most people find having more money to be helpful.
A $10b AWS contract would not even amount to enough storage to keep one copy of the public web.
Very confidently incorrect.
Note however that it can have local effects - e.g. if you use water from natural sources to cool your datacenter and then dump it back into the environment, it can easily raise up the water temperature enough to affect the ecosystem around. This can also have far-reaching effects - e.g. say you do that in a river where salmon from far away comes to spawn...
They took it offline not because it takes a long time to change the prompt, but because it takes a long time to verify that their new prompt isn't similarly problematic.
> It seems likely that the corpus has had wrongthink expunged prior to training.
It seems likely to you because you erroneously believe that "wokeism" is some sort of intentional strategy and not just people trying to be decent. And because you haven't thought about how much effort it would take to do that and how little training data there would be left (in some areas, anyway).
> Are you implying that a pro version would allow the user to modify the system prompt?
I am saying it is not hard to imagine, as you claimed, that the pro version would have a different prompt than the free version*. Because I know that wokeism is not some corrupt mind virus where we're all conspiring to de-white your life; it's just people trying to be decent and sometimes over-correcting one way or the other.
* Apparently these are the same version, but it's still not a death knell for the entire model that one version of it included a poorly thought-out system prompt.
This is an ironic statement. On the one hand, you are able to read my mind and determine the worldview and intent behind my words. One the other, you suggest I'm doing the same to people who subscribe to "wokeism".
Meanwhile, Jack Krawczyk, a Sr. Director of Product on Gemini, has been publicly declaring on X (over years) things like "...This is America, where the #1 value our populace seeks to uphold is racism" and "...We obviously have egregious racism in this country.." and "I’ve been crying in intermittent bursts for the past 24 hours since casting my ballot. Filling in that Biden/Harris line felt cathartic." Do you think he is an exemplar of "wokeism" (however you want to define that term)? Do you think he is influential within the Gemini org? Do you think he is emblematic of the worldview of Google employees? Do you think his words are those of the type of person who is "just trying to be decent" but has made honest mistakes in his work?
> I am saying it is not hard to imagine,
This is really pretty pedantic, don't you think? I'd bet most people who read those words understood what I meant. Which is that it is unlikely (though, yes, not hard to imagine) that Gemini will allow users to alter the system prompt.
The bottom line is, Google appears to have either 1) introduced extreme bias into Gemini in some way or 2) to be pretty incompetent. Neither inspires confidence.
I don't have to read your mind when you use words like "wrongthink". Clearly you think you're the hero in a dystopian sci-fi novel where a brainwashed society tries to shun you for "saying what we're all thinking".
> Meanwhile, Jack Krawczyk, a Sr. Director of Product on Gemini, has been publicly declaring on X (over years) things like "...This is America, where the #1 value our populace seeks to uphold is racism"
I mean, 60+ million people swear a blood oath to a senile narcissistic raging asshole, voting against their own interests, accepting exploitation by their cult leader, for no other reason but that he promises to make brown people suffer, so, it's a little hard to criticize Jack's claim here
> "...We obviously have egregious racism in this country.."
Again: this is patently obvious to anyone who pays even a tiny bit of attention to anything that's going on, so ...
> Do you think he is an exemplar of "wokeism" (however you want to define that term)? Do you think his words are those of the type of person who is "just trying to be decent" but has made honest mistakes in his work?
I certainly think acknowledging that 60 million voters have "hurt the brown people" as their #1 core political issue is compatible with trying to be a decent person, yes.
> Do you think he is emblematic of the worldview of Google employees?
No. Why would he be? He's just one guy.
> Do you think he is influential within the Gemini org?
Of course, but the fact that he's not willfully ignorant of the political reality of the United States does not mean he demanded that Google systematically purge their training data of white people. That is an insane jump to make. And it is also obviously not borne out by the fact that Gemini knows what a German WWII soldier looks like at all.
> [I meant] that it is unlikely (though, yes, not hard to imagine) that Gemini will allow users to alter the system prompt.
No, you said it was hard to imagine (okay, unlikely) Gemini Pro being useful because of Google's "bizarre biases". And it has become clear that, to you, simply acknowledging that racism exists is a bizarre bias. I claimed it was a system prompt, you claimed they purged the training data of wrongthink.
For longer context to brute force it the problem is more on the memory side instead of the compute. Both bandwidth and capacity. We have more than enough compute for N^2 actually. The initial processing is dense, but is still largely bound by memory bw. Output is entirely bound by memory bw since you can't make your cores go brrr with only GEMV. And then you need capacity to keep KV "cache" [0] for the session. A single TPU v5e pod has only 4TB HBM, assuming pipeline parallel across multiple TPU pods isn't going to fly, I haven't run the numbers but I suspect you get batch=1/batch=2 inference at best. Which is prohibitively expensive. But again who knows, groq demonstrated a token-wise more expensive inference tech and got people wowed by pure speed. Maybe Google's similar move is long context. They have an additional advantage as they can have exclusive access to TPU so that before H200 ships they may be the only one who can serve a 1M token LLM to the public without breaking a bank.
[0] "Cache" is a really poor name. It you don't do this you get O(n^3) which is not going to work at all. IMO it's wrong to name your intermediate state "cache" if removing it changes asymptotic complexity.
I'm talking about a simple fact - to efficiently (cost-wise) run LLM inference you have to have a KV "cache" and its size grows (linearly) by your expected batch size and your context window length. With a large context window length it become even bigger than model weight.
I don't want to be mean, but sorry:
Sorry, read up on PagedAttention. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, please be better.
I'm flying with my family from New York to Florida in a month to visit my sister's side of the family. How would I objectively evaluate whether that is "worth" the impact on my carbon footprint that that flight will have?
One source recommends keeping it under 2T/yr. https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon...
I’m fairly certain the vision pro could do it right now.
/small print: requires read all, send all permissions
I never built it, but it's perfectly possible to do.
The genius idea IMHO was the business model- If you were into certain things you wanted to keep private from most but only wanted to disclose to other people who were into those same things, you could pay a fee, and it would then show you others who were in that "market" (of ideas, drugs, sex, whatever). (It might only ask you to pay it if it found someone nearby who matched. And then it would automatically notify the other person unless you paid an ADDITIONAL fee... Not sure about the latter idea, but it was an idea.)
The only issue is everyone holding their phone up in front of their faces.
> The only issue is everyone holding their phone up in front of their faces.
No, the genius idea is its major issue, just by paying you gain access to private data (people's preferences) without any kind of chain of trust to make sure that someone is actually part of the group ("market" in your terms) for which they want access to.
By paying you could know that someone around you is looking for cocaine, or is willing to sell sexual services, or is looking to match other people from the same gender, or holds a certain political view against an authoritarian government, etc.
That would be a good argument over not permitting a unilateral notification of a match (which, at the very least, I wanted to make very expensive and thus profitable, if it's allowed at all). If it notified both people 100% of the time, and one of you was a possible impostor, you could report them. And from a legal standpoint, showing interest in a market doesn't make you guilty. And, you could possibly also build "cred" in one of these tagged "markets" by getting cred from others who say you're legit, and that information would be revealed at the same time (possibly at your discretion).
In theory, changing your mind should signal that you are capable of thinking about things, and changing your mind based on what you learn.
In practice, most people's opinions are determined by peer pressure. You believe X because the important people around you believe X.
From that perspective, changing your mind means that your loyalty has changed. Previously you tried to be friends with people who believed X, now you are trying to be friends with people who believe Y. No one likes a traitor.
I don't think parent comment is suggesting that people aren't allowed to change their mind.
They are pointing out that many people yell "hypocrite!" when someone does change their mind. It's already a phenomenon on social media where people will dig through someone's post history and drag them through the coals, using previous stances on a topic in an attempt to discredit the current stance. Parent is suggesting that this problem would be exacerbated.
And you can be sure government agencies will do the same.
Your service would probably not be able to tie so uniquely to an individual, so there would be ways for people to transfer it.
Or just hire a company to pretend to be you for a while.
Or is this a deal like complaining about Apple supposedly using slave labor, while blithely ignoring the fact that every other computer and cell phone comes out of essentially the same Chinese factories? If anything, the people who crank out low-end Android phones probably get paid less than Apple's workers. I'm nearly 100% certain they don't get paid more.
I'm skeptical that Galaxus warehouses are worker's paradises, because I did a few stints at warehouse work as a youngster.
You know what? Warehouse work sucks, and it sucked long before Amazon came along.
I never said galaxus was a workers paradise. It’s still work. But work at regular conditions, not the exploitative ones Amazon is famous for.
Did you seriously never hear about the amount of workplace accidents rate at Amazon vs other companies? The people who died in the warehouse collapsing a few months ago because there was a hurricane and employees were not allowed to go shelter? The workers peeing in bottles to avoid bathroom breaks and keeping their grueling per hour quotas? The union squashing efforts by Amazon? The notoriously bad working conditions at Amazon (warehouse but also software)?
I’ve never heard that about other Swiss companies I purchase from. It’s probably not paradise. It’s still not Amazon level of hell and exploitation.
On a practical level, Amazon quality is shit, you get damaged or used returns sold as new, returning stuff means sending it to Slovakia out of pocket and waiting weeks for it to be processed (or returned to you because Amazon never accepted delivery), then fighting to be refunded, sometimes stuff gets stolen in your return parcels by the mail service… I really can’t see a point to undergo all this BS and feed Amazon to save 10–20% on the odd thing I buy and can also find from domestic retailers.
I hear stories about Amazon, but NEVER about other warehouses. That's the whole point.
> I’ve never heard that about other Swiss companies I purchase from. It’s probably not paradise. It’s still not Amazon level of hell and exploitation.
That does not follow. You've "never heard" anything one way or another, which means that you have no evidence of any kind.
I, on the other hand, have personal experience with working in non-Amazon warehouses. They all sucked.
I honestly think the packaging my Amazon stuff comes in is much more eco friendly than the actual product packaging itself.
Our reactions to stuff like that are defined largely by our cultural expectations, but those are in turn constantly shaped by what is made possible or impossible by technology. Back in the pre-voicemail phone era, for example, people would routinely call someone and expect them to be available for a half-hour chat - you could turn it down, sure, but in many cases it would be considered impolite to do so as a matter of social convention. Then voicemail appeared, and SMS was the final nail in that coffin.
So I think that this problem will exist for a while, but if the tech that enables it persists long enough, it will eventually go on as conventions change to adapt to it.
In my job you could call me a hypocrite all day and it wouldn't matter (though I'd find the uncreative repetition annoying)
Amazon is also notorious about exploiting workers. I seriously doubt you’ve never heard that claim or read anything about it and think it’s just another normal [warehouse] job.
https://www.vox.com/recode/23170900/leaked-amazon-memo-wareh...
I asked you for evidence that Galaxus warehouses are substantively better.
Since you have provided no such evidence, I conclude that you have none.
I’m not going to debate this with you any further, you’re free to believe and do what you want.
Then you have absolutely no basis for comparison, do you?
> We’ve established that Amazon is worse than most companies in terms of safety, worker abuse, union squashing, environment
We've established nothing of the sort.
> It follows that most other companies are better than Amazon on some or all these aspects.
You have admitted you have no data. What are you basing your claim on? Sheer bigotry? Looks like it!
> I’m not going to debate this with you any further,
Blind assertion with no evidence is not a "debate".