Why would that be the case? If anything, each successive generation of AI tools gets easier to use and requires less prompt fiddling. I picked up Cursor and was comfortable with it in 20 minutes.
I'm not sure there's much of a skillset to speak of for these tools, beyond model-specific tricks that evaporate after a few updates.
This whole saga has been very funny to watch, but it's also very dark and concerning. This one was very sloppy, but in truth, the owners in charge of these models have tons of power to editorialize behind the scenes. And they are going to use those powers.
Because this follows what the Associated Press style guide suggests and it’s either in enough of the training data to be followed, or, OpenAI purposefully made it follow a style guide that happened to contain this rule after the fact when generating responses? https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-910566...
Ironically, by flippantly dismissing the concern about the issue, you’re also dismissing the motivations of the people who championed the term and encouraged its adoption. They certainly think it’s important. Labels are very important! The term “Hispanic” was created in an effort to politically organize disparate Hispanic populations, who identified with myriad different nationalities rather than a common race (“La Raza”).
Capitalizing “black” is a political statement, not a linguistic description. In English, races aren’t capitalized, while terms referring to distinct ethnic groups are (so you capitalize “German” but not “white”). As John McWhorter persuasively explains, rationale for capitalizing “Black” is that American descendants of slaves are a distinct group bound by shared history and culture. That’s fine insofar as “Black” is used to refer to what we might call “ADOS.” But in practice “Black” is used as a racial designator. At Harvard, for example, 40% of the “Black” students are african immigrants. Obama is “Black”—that describes his race, not his ethno-cultural group.
Capitalizing “black” is a political effort to center the experience of black people in American life. Consider the term “BIPOC,” which breaks out “black” and “indigenous” as first among equals even though they’re included in the “POC.” What is the intention of that?
These labels and classifications, in turn, have real world ramifications. My daughter’s school has a segregated “black girl magic” lunch every week. There’s no “half white half bangladeshi girl magic,” and few non-black, non-white students, so she was invited to attend the weekly lunch once a month. Even at age 12, my daughter is able to perceive there is a racial hierarchy designed to invert the historical one.
No. The endgame of most people who are pro-DEI is to smash or dismantle structures of oppression. The more ideological fraction views every matter of public policy through that lens. Too much crime? Let's not get hung up on dis-incentivizing crime or separating chronic criminals from society, particularly if doing so would harm an oppressed group. The proper response to crime is to dismantle the structures of oppression, after which the crime problem will probably take care of itself because people are basically good. If some group is committing a lot of crimes, it is probably a reaction to having been oppressed. Or so the ideologues believe. Dismantling oppression is also the best long-term solution to every other social problem, and probably the only lasting or sustainable solution.
I’m talking about social structures, not policies. The endgame is to develop social structures where non-whites, and especially black people, have moral superiority while whites have moral culpability. These social and moral norms are already developing: https://www.aol.com/news/james-carville-calls-ilhan-omar-135....
The risk is not to the material interests of white people—they have a plurality of the population so you won’t get a situation like South Africa. Instead, you’ll get a breakdown of racial egalitarianism. Half the country will feel comfortable being openly racist against whites—and each other—even if they don’t have the votes to act on that animus. Meanwhile, most whites raised in that environment—the ones who don’t have economic privilege to fall back on—will develop a racial animosity we haven’t seen since the 1950s. The result will be ethnic conflict that cripples our ability to do anything (just as in virtually all multi-ethnic societies).
> The endgame is to develop social structures where non-whites, and especially black people, have moral superiority while whites have moral culpability.
What can possibly go wrong when a portion of the population feels segregated?
I wonder if it will make them adopt a victimization stance and band together around those that promise to end it.
> I wonder if it will make them adopt a victimization stance and band together around those that promise to end it.
Not only promising to end it, but gaining their trust by giving them facts that collapse the official narrative. The midwestern kid who are growing up hearing "slavery built America"--someone is going to tell him that his ancestors were German indentured servants who cultivated cold, harsh land themselves and whose only involvement with slavery was fighting and dying to end it.
I have to admit that the objective and historical parts of your analysis are completely correct and well researched, even though I totally disagree with you about the subjective merits and morality of the whole thing. Kudos.
This is absolutely a "trend" (been going on for years now) in nightclubs in Berlin. Almost none of them allow photography of any sort, and will sticker up your phone at the entrance to remind you.
When you are taking photos or even thinking of doing it, you are not living in the moment.
When I go to clubs in other countries, the difference is really stark. People aren't actually dancing and don't look like they're having fun.
I agree with you that guns are a an insane problem. However, that shouldn't discourage us from solving other unrelated problems when the solutions present themselves.
I'm not following your logic here. He is not allowed to use Signal for his work. It sounds like there were some measures in place to block lots of "normal internet" (for any number of good reasons), which would include Signal. He then deliberately circumvented those measures so he could use Signal.
Deliberately circumventing security and policy protocols is a bad thing in itself.
The article premise is that he used dirty Internet connection to access Signal. My argument is that is the only known way to access Signal as far as we are all aware. Because as has already been stated, it’s only approved for unclassified communications only per DoD policy. I don’t know what’s secret in his communications because we don’t know what the government has designated as such.
My image prompt is just to have them make a realistic chess game. There are always tons of weird issues like the checkerboard pattern not lining up with itself, triplicate pieces, the wrong sized grid, etc
I don't follow this example. You could still have an account delete the email while generating a record that an email was deleted. Why would you need an account that doesn't generate deletion records?
reply