Much like agents, I can tell myself I'm a senior infrastructure/security engineer doing a thorough, adversarial code review, but that doesn't change the results much.
Apparently https://github.com/scanaislop/aislop with AGENTS.md is not AI slop, but projects of mine last modified before 2016 all contain critical AI slop. So very accurate.
> when was the last time you heard about the Chinese space stations outside China?
Last year, when negative news of delayed astronaut return was all over American news, e.g. [1][2]. Apparently makes American astronauts onboard Boeing ship being stuck in space less embarrassing.
Using text-align: justify for questionable aesthetic purpose here really hurts readability, especially on a narrower viewport like the 1026px viewport of Safari with sidebar on an iPad Pro 12.9’’ (although it’s probably more of a problem of the four column layout on that specific narrow viewport; three should be better).
I agree that text-align: justify should be the way to go. Don't discard having a "config" menu in the header somehow to change this option along body text size as some other people might find it useful, which could then use localstorage to preserve the settings. Love the website by the way! I'm used to skim through brutalist.report in a daily basis but this one may be a worthy replacement :)
Yeah it’s smarter than that, but as a daily user of git absorb it still gets things wrong fairly often though—like a couple times a week often for me. Plus the changes it can’t absorb automatically (e.g. a lone doc change it can’t find peers for).
Go to any top STEM PhD program and do a headcount. I don’t know what’s going on now thanks to this wave of xenophobia and funding cut madness, but back when I was in one (Princeton Physics, that was last decade), everywhere I go it was at least 50-50 in terms of international representation. You can also count the massive number of clearly foreign born faculty. It could not be more obvious.
Edit: And before you mention O-1 and friends for highly accomplished individuals (maybe that's not affected for now? Honestly have no idea), this kind of policy has wide ranging second order effects even if it doesn't affect top talent directly. Like I said I was U.S. educated myself, once I would encourage bright minds from elsewhere to pursue a higher education in the U.S., now I heavily advise them from even setting foot in the U.S.
> Go to any top STEM PhD program and do a headcount
Having done a STEM PhD, No. STEM PhDs are merely easily exploited labor by STEM departments. The PhDs and postdocs from foreign countries are typically a notch lower than the US PhDs and postdocs (especially the postdocs, because in many foreign countries you can do a 3 year PhD). It's just that most americans won't accept 100 hour workweeks in exchange for a $50k paycheck, and won't falsify the science to stay in pursuit of the next rung on the academic ladder.
But foreign PhD students and postdocs who are being paid partially in the legal right to reside in the US might well be willing to accept those conditions. Just as an H1B visa tech employee is willing to accept lower wages and less freedom to challenge their employer, or an illegal immigrant farm laborer is willing to accept those working conditions in return for not being in whatever country they illegally immigrated from.
Any justification at all for the US government to give a visa to someone - including student visas, including visas for postdocs doing ostensible research - will be gamed by people whose primary concern is access to the US. Demand for access to the US among the myriad peoples of the world is that strong.
Sounds like the bitter words of someone who got pushed out. I know the type, I’m no longer an academic myself. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, not sorry to claim that the overwhelming majority of the most important advancements are still made by people with PhDs, however many unsuccessful ones there are.
I did fine for myself. You're crazy or brainwashed if you don't think there's something wrong going on in the academe. I have long conversations with my friend (who is a professor at ASU) about it, I don't think he's blowing smoke up my ass.
I think there’s something very wrong with every single walk of society, and academia’s problems are far from the most grave. If I’m given the choice again, I take a rotten academia over fucking ad machines and quants that do no good / actively do harm in this world (both industries try to hire me and the likes of me) every time, even when I know I’m gonna leave at the end.
Ad machines and quants are bad. But fraudulent science is worth NEGATIVE, because good scientists burn out or don't get promoted because they spin their wheels trying to reproduce bad science (losing time on the ladder) and bad scientists who either make shit results themselves or don't speak up about bad science and "build" on top of it, they get promoted, and the rot rises to the top instead of the cream.
At least everyone knows that there's something icky about ads and quants, and good people like you reject the lucrative opportunities. Most people generally think that science can do no bad at any scale, and that just throwing money at the problem/good intentions are all you need. The enterprise of science has a truthseeking model that it needs to uphold in order to succeed at its advertised ends, and it's desperately becoming the exact opposite of what it should be, and nobody has reasonable remedies to fix it within the current system. If you have a suggestion on how to fix what we've gotten ourselves into, please , I'd love to hear it.
Most of these anti immigrant takes are ultimately sour grapes from people who were often rightfully left behind or economically downlifted by their lack of willingness to adapt to the changing world we are in.
Most of these who think that wasp Americans are harmed by high skilled immigrants are admitting that they can’t beat them. Pathetic slave morality which is life denying and ontologically damnable.
You’re full of shit. White American Ph.ds are on average a tier below foreign born ones. I just hired an intern based on AI research academic credentials and out of well over 300 applications I got 3 whole American citizens and they weren’t even in the top 10 in quality.
This is why most ivy Ph.d holders are some kind of Asian. Peter and Paul really are dumber than the alternative on average.
Why would an American smart enough to become a stem phd toil away for a decade in poverty under an abusive university system instead of becoming rich in tech?
If you mean “intelligent” Americans who work on fucking blood sucking ad tech or garbage financial engineering rather than pushing the boundaries of science and technology, sure.
The flow of students between China and the USA is effectively unidirectional and always has been. What insight do you have to suggest that this will change in the near future?
Wait, how the hell can Australia Post charge you the full AUD 111.60 for a failed shipment when it seems to be the fault of the clerk who approved the shipment against their own rules? And sounds like the package didn’t even leave Australia so even if you should pay for the full mileage it would be 20% at most?
I couldn't tell if the screenshot was from an LLM or the post office's website. It sure looks like what a post office would say so I'm inclined to think that's not autogenerated. A total ban on anything containing lithium batteries, as the company claimed when returning the shipment, seems wrong as well. We receive laptops from customers for doing pentests all the time, for example. Australians could never order a phone or earbuds that didn't already make it into Australia via another shipping company. Etc. Why'd they forego all that custom? How many electronics nowadays don't have such a battery? This doesn't sound to me like it was only GPT spewing nonsense
But yeah I had the same question: OP said that ChatGPT initially produced words that turned out to be sensible, but not where that later screenshot came from
Failed businesses also tend to provide lower returns on capital, and that’s totally backed up by data. Doesn’t mean the “purpose” of those companies was to provide lower returns on capital.
It's a very meaningful statement when people claim that thing X's purpose is Y which is good, and therefore thing X is good, even though the actual outcome Z is not Y and in fact may be diametrically opposed to Y. Happens quite often.
I don't know if it really applies to the current thread, but I just wanted to point out that POSIWID is certainly not a vapid, empty concept.
reply