Oh, so he is one of those who want a legion of Mars children to prevent apocalypse. Why are rich people so weird?
He better makes all 100 aware of each other for a much simpler reason: incest prevention. Even though the chance being slim, it is possible.
A dutch man was sentenced to not donate any more sperm because one company illegally used his to fertilize dozens of eggs resultingin statistically problematic number of children from one individual.
So listen techbros, this is not how you "safe" humanity.
Eminem hinted at the answer. During the peak of his fame he was at a restaurant with his crew and having a great time and he was making jokes and everyone was laughing and then in a flash of clarity he realised:
> of course they're laughing, every single one of these people are on my payroll.
Riches have an incredibly distorting effect, especially once you cross the threshold of becoming a target. At that point you _need_ security, you _need_ to move to a gated community and you can no longer lead a normal life. The only other people you can meet who aren't trying to get into your wallet are other rich people and they're as insane as you are. You also have "fuck you" money so being nice, having other people like you isn't necessary any more. You no longer have a limiter. It gives people the opportunity to be more monstrous and I worry that much monstrosity lies dormant within us all, simply waiting for its opportunity.
IMHO Hoardcurse only has two cures: put yourself at risk by forcing yourself to interact with normal people who don't owe you anything and don't know how rich you are, or give-away/spend your assets and become normally poor again, which ofc nobody ever does.
It's fame more than riches that does this. You can be as rich as you like, but if you stay out of the news and don't splash cash no-one will ever know. I know someone like this. The live an upper middle class life (nice house, etc.) but could easily afford a lot more. They don't want all the bullshit that entails.
Not entirely, its more a worry than an assertion, humanity's greatest strength is that it isn't a monolith so I'd figure YMMV. Its just when the jeering crowd point and shame others for being reprehensible, part of me wonders if all that crowd would pass that vibe-check if they'd been presented with that same opportunity. Is it morality, or is it just opportunity? Idk but I think its hard to prove either way.
So, true wealth removes the limiters and the consequences that might keep some people in check. It's like how, for all the horrors that religion foisted upon us over the centuries, one of the good things it did was to encourage a general populace to attempt to better people using the threat of hell and encouraging an acknowledgement of sin.
There's also some selection bias going on: in order to become obscenely wealthy, you probably need to lack some empathy and decency to beging with. Once you get there, these qualities can then flourish unhinged.
What's new here is that Peter Thiel is a libertarian who wants to destroy democracies because he's a christian lunatic who believes in armageddon and the anti-christ and sees democracies and multi-national organizations like the UN and the EU as tsaid anti-christ. This is not a joke, even though I wish it was because it sounds so ridiculous. Palantir is not our friend. And they probably WILL read my comment.
This is exactly how division works. Threaten all and they turn on each other. "Why me? I'm not the one you want! Take them!" It's not so much about the Gaza protests, that's just another occassion to normalize division and mistrust within all parts of society.
Pairs of resumes and job descriptions with binary labels, one of the hired person was a good fit for the job, zero otherwise. Of course to compile such a dataset you would need to retroactively analyze hiring decisions: "Person with resume X was hired for job Y Z years ago, did it work out or not?" Not many companies do such analyses.
Question then is whether to fine tune an autoregressive LLM or use embeddings and attach a linear head to predict the outcome. Probably the latter.
You could also create viable labels without real life hires. Have a panel of 3 expert judges and give them a pile of 300 CVs and there's your training data. The model is then answering the easier question "would a human have chosen to pursue an interview given this information?" which more closely maps to what you're trying to have the model do anyways.
Then action the model so it only acts as a low confidence first pass filter, removing the bottom 40% of CVs instead of the more impossible task of trying to have it accurately give you the top 10%.
But this is more work than writing a 200 word system prompt and appending the resume and asking ChatGPT, and nobody in HR will be able to notice the difference.
I understand at a both a very high and very low level how LLMs are trained - can someone here help me better understand the middle?
I understand how one could build a training set of CVs, job descriptions, and outcomes. How much data would be needed here to create training and validation sets large enough to influence and confirm adequate performance?
One problem with any method like this is that this is not a single player game, and there are lots of companies that create AI generated resumes for you and also have data about who gets hired and who doesn't.
ChatGPT is always in my pocket, I can use it effortlessly when I'm travelling.
My Chinese isn't good enough to explain the difference between ice cream and gelato to my in-laws but ChatGPT gave me a good-enough output in seconds, this far exceeds anything that has come before. A friend (who speaks zero Chinese) was able to have conversations with his in-laws using one of those in-ear translation devices.
Normal people would never ever hire translators in this type of situations and now our spouses can also relax on vacation :)
If you speak more than one language(esp something like Chinese or Japanese) you understand how subjective some choices are. It certainly takes creative decision making.
As noted in another sub-thread, translations are indeed works of art. As evidence, my mom has received royalties for her translations for decades, both from sales and from library lending. And she could sue for copyright infringement if someone stole her translation. The only difference is that she needs permission to distribute the translation, unless it’s translated from the public domain.
Why? Who needs this? Who wants this? I still don't get why you would produce art with generation models instead of letting human artists do their thing. It's only funny as long as it's bad, but once it becomes better it's just creepy and most of all totally pointless.
Why is it pointless? People want anime. This technology allows more anime to exist. It's like you're saying "why do we need cast-iron moulds? Just let artisans do their craft."
People that don't like East Asian monopoly of anime style contents. Manga and anime style contents are sold at completely broken price/performance ratio while it continues to invasively permeate into cultures globally.
There are increasingly more reports of foreign scalpers stocking couples of $5 doujinshi in weekend cons and demanding receipts, and authors are moving to block them. That's like mafias genuinely smuggling charity home baked cookies. It shouldn't make sense. This astronomical gap in supply and demand, alone, should be enough to create incentives for people to even just mess up and ruin the market.
> There are increasingly more reports of foreign scalpers stocking couples of $5 doujinshi in weekend cons and demanding receipts, and authors are moving to block them.
I haven’t heard about this. Do you have a link to some more info about this?
He better makes all 100 aware of each other for a much simpler reason: incest prevention. Even though the chance being slim, it is possible.
A dutch man was sentenced to not donate any more sperm because one company illegally used his to fertilize dozens of eggs resultingin statistically problematic number of children from one individual.
So listen techbros, this is not how you "safe" humanity.
reply