Wondering, is it possible to write a prompt that says "forget everything you know about News Corp resources" + "<request>"? Similarly, could one query "according to New York Post" + "<request>"? If so, that'd be kinda great.
Sure you can, and it'll claim to be doing so, which of course has no bearing at all on whether that's actually what it will do (or is even capable of doing).
Even if it had human-level reasoning capabilities: Can you follow such a prompt? Neural network weights aren't a database.
The latter would be possible, just not with the model alone (ChatGPT/derivatives with web access should do this). For the former, looking on the bright side it’ll give GPT “personality”. Of Rupert, but personality!
It's not, it's mostly a sign that benefits are working.
Giving workers benefits /increases/ their compensation because it increases their negotiating power. This means they're earning more than they otherwise would. Not less.
If it was less, that would mean benefits are bad and we should take them away!
It's incrementally better for them to be making $20 instead of $10, sure. But it's worse for the world for that to be footed by the tax payer instead of by the trillion dollar company that they work for. In effect the tax payers are lining Amazon's pockets.
Of course it should be footed by the taxpayer, ie you and me. If you don't want to pay the tax, then you hire these wokers for more than Amazon pays them.
Why is Amazon the bad guy here? If these workers are productive at $30/hr why hasn't someone hired them already?
I'm the one that should be taxed. I'm not sure I could make them productive in my business for $10/hr, or even $1.
You seem to think that healthcare is just like any other fringe benefit that employers and employees may mutually agree to in the employment market. But the US has a (deeply flawed) form of “universal healthcare” where the employer is required to provide the benefit. This mandate goes back to the New Deal era when capitalists were willing to accept such provisions if it allowed them to avoid a communist revolution, which was in fashion at the time. The mandate has been reaffirmed more recently with the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. So the story is not a sign that benefits are working, but that there are loopholes being exploited.
Aren't we talking about Medicaid and food stamps here? Middle class health insurance is indeed an employer subsidy in the US (and it's bad), but Medicaid isn't.
Part of the reason we still have this system is that unions like being able to provide healthcare as a benefit though.
The spirit of the policy as understood by most is that employers pay most of the cost of healthcare for their employees, middle class or not. So it comes as a surprise to learn that Medicaid, a program meant for children, the disabled and unemployed, is covering the benefit for employees at taxpayer expense. Amazon can’t have it both ways: lower corporate taxes based on the assumption that they directly provide health care, and the benefit of offloading the health care burden to the state. Can you see why people are concerned about this?
No, wages are set by negotiating with workers; Amazon is not purely a price setter of wages. That means giving workers money lets them get better wages. (They would be one if they were a monopsony though. But mostly they aren't.)
> under pressure from the government to take any Job.
Work requirements for welfare can indeed hurt workers this way by making them take worse jobs.
It's essentially just a subsidy to large employers? So they can not pay their employees enough? Is this what these programs are intended for? I didn't understand it that way but maybe I'm wrong.
If it was a subsidy to large employers it would be paid to the employer. Those are called wage subsidies. (Health insurance in the US works like this, obviously it's not great.)
These are paid to the worker though. That means it's a subsidy against the employer! It makes them worse off, not better.
It is in effect a subsidy to employers, while still being a benefit to employees.
As prior evidence shows, there is always someone willing to work for less, if they have to. As such, the only real solution to the issue that does not make the economic situation worse for employees is to punish corporations for paying so little that their employees need benefits from the government.
Anything else only hurts the employees or provides greater subsidy to the employer.
These datapoints strengthen my argument. More Americans are in the workforce than ever before, because every household requires more laborers to do work for less compensation.
Federal employment data also does not paint a cohesive picture of the situation.
For one, it does not include undocumented labor - the labor that makes up the vast majority of incredibly low paid positions. Secondly, it is inflated by the fact that so many people are forced to work part-time positions - usually multiple at once.
> More Americans are in the workforce than ever before, because every household requires more laborers to do work for less compensation.
That isn't what they show. Actually what they show is that households have gotten smaller over time, because people have gotten richer/older and no longer live with their parents.
> Federal employment data also does not paint a cohesive picture of the situation.
These numbers come from a monthly household survey and don't have this issue. They know what they're doing.
> For one, it does not include undocumented labor - the labor that makes up the vast majority of incredibly low paid positions.
Such people have, since 2019, actually gotten the most pay increases of any part of the working population.
> Secondly, it is inflated by the fact that so many people are forced to work part-time positions - usually multiple at once.
Only 5% of Americans report working multiple jobs, and that's not particularly historically high.
Your idea of how the economy works is just a decade out of date. In the ways you think it's bad it is specifically the best it's been in decades, or in fact ever.
No, unfortunately you are mistaken - the US media does not inform my worldview as I generally do not consume it without supplement.
My idea of how the economy works is informed by the state of the economy for real people - unlike yours, which relies entirely on federal data manipulated to present the picture that the federal government is succeeding in its economic policy. They do “know what they’re doing”, certainly. You on the other hand, do not seem to.
Every single thing you have said here is wrong or a misunderstanding of what data has actually been gathered and where it comes from.
The BLS is an independent agency. There isn't a single "the federal government" that cares about its image like this. Nor does "the federal government" have a single economic policy. It has, like, two or three of them and some (fiscal vs monetary policy) are directly opposed to each other.
A monthly survey of 60k households is "talking to real people" and it's the only way to get accurate impressions of what's happening to them. If you rely on people bitching then you'll get a negativity bias.
> Every single thing you have said here is wrong or a misunderstanding of what data has actually been gathered and where it comes from.
I understand it fine. You seem to have moved from not realizing I was posting direct survey data, to coping by just claiming the numbers are made up.
Note that if you claim it's made up now, why was it not made up in 2009 or 2020 when it did look bad?
> "These temporary phone number services represent a threat to websites and mobile applications as they are heavily used by fraudsters to create thousands of fake accounts to can be used to conduct scams, post spam, and spread malware."
Or... they represent people who don't want to be tracked by Big Tech, or people who investigate crimes. It's a bit too broad sweeping and black and white of a conclusion.
The requirement that the recovery email address be a non-ProtonMail email is a bit fishy as well. The recovery email can be modified/deleted after initial account setup. However, it is unclear to me if Proton is caching that sensitive user information, to potentially turn over to authorities. Unsettling.
There is no such requirement. You seem to be conflating a verification email address with the recovery one. The verification email address is sometimes required upon signup, but is not tied to the particular account, and also hashed so we don't have access to it: https://proton.me/support/human-verification. Therefore, we cannot share it with any third-parties (authorities included).
Recovery address (which is what this case is about), on the other hand, is completely optional, and it's not the only option we offer for account recovery: https://proton.me/support/set-account-recovery-methods. Also, it is removed from our systems as soon as you remove it from your account.
Verification emails are, as previously explained, hashed only, so we have no access to them. Additionally, they are not tied to a particular account.
Recovery emails are, on the other hand, only stored as long as the users themselves need them - as soon as you delete your recovery email from your account, it's deleted from our systems too.
> From what I saw when I worked there, they don't have the talent to produce their own models (which is, I think, what we all expected to see)
The talent is repeatedly run off by managers and executives who don't know how to manage talent. At this point, I'm convinced it's actually part of the Amazon culture to not excel at AI/ML. Mediocre, or else. It's so weird (and abusive) to be around. 10/10 not a rewarding place to work.
Personally I have always felt that AWS has too much of "manager culture" or something. But them missing AI train was crazy though.
I am personally more surprised that Microsoft did not miss that train with AI and now are pretty aggressive with integration of AI everywhere. Though I wonder if Microsoft would not have missed mobile and search if Nadella was CEO after Gates. Satya is ruthless. Even despite not being first in cloud, they still are able to compete with AWS.
It is happening all over industry. Those that can't adapt will be eaten by AI.
And AI is moving way too fast and the execs who took a wait and see approach are now in panic mode. AI tooling should be a straight forward investment regardless of outcome.
Could it be because everyone was laid off and needs a job? Could it be unprecedented amounts of layoffs are an orchestrated measure by large corporations to "ensure" they are not "monopolies", as anti-trust season kicks off? Could it be that those same large corporations will end up buying or strategically killing these same start ups because they inevitably engage in anti-competitive practices? Could it be that lobbying dollars will shelter these large corporations from enduring legal ramifications?
Seriously. Chill with this cold war posturing. The toys are too dangerous, with too little visibility or oversight.
reply