I'm not a fan of Trump but I don't think you can let Biden off the hook on inflation either: Biden should've reversed course on tariffs, and not added his own, but didn't - likely a political calculus to avoid appearing "soft on China". Lifting tariffs would've immediately provided relief to both businesses and consumers.
They do have a cooling effect on the economy though, so perhaps the other motivation for keeping them around was to prevent run-away inflation. While Tariffs can raise the cost of goods, they do not in-and-of-themselves create inflation unless you attempt to pump money back into the economy to repair the damage being caused by your tariffs.
This whole fear of being "soft on" whichever perceived enemy is probably the cultural element driving us deeper into isolationism.
We get into fights with a family member and don't want to look soft so we punch them back and then avoid them. We create more and more distance and relationships fall apart and then we get more lonely.
So as it hurts personal relationships, it hurts political-economic relationships. We want to punish China with tariffs, and it's like punching our enemy in the face and hurting our own hand. And then they punch us back and hurt us and their own hand. Self- and other-defeating attempts at solutions.
I'd say the weaker approach is to punch and/or run. The stronger approach takes the punches and still tries to work with the other person, recognizing how we help each other.
But the AI-public Internet timeline is more like 1995. if all web search disappeared in 1995 it would've been a massive loss, despite how primitive search engines were back then.
It seems self-evident it will, and it's largely self-reinforcing.
Less documentation/examples of new tech -> New model doesn't have enough info on new tech to be useful -> Less uptake of new technology -> Less documentation/examples to build a corpus....
I do wonder if this problem could get solved by basically providing documentation explicitly written for LLMs to consume and produce more detailed "synthetic" documentation/examples from. No idea if that's possible or even wise, but probably a problem space worth exploring. Or if these LLMs develop some sort of standardized way to rapidly apply new bodies of work that avoids costly retraining - like kernel modules, but for LLMs.
Since the current chatbots have the ability to tap into Google Search, it's not unlikely they could gather their own up to date documentation on-the-fly. This would create a slew of new attack vectors where malicious actors will try to add backdoors into the documentation, which the LLM would reproduce.
A seasoned software engineer will easily pick it up, but the large amount of folks that are just copy pasting chatbot output to make their own apps will certainly miss it.
> Less documentation/examples of new tech -> New model doesn't have enough info on new tech to be useful -> Less uptake of new technology -> Less documentation/examples to build a corpus....
Q: Could it be that those who aren't relying on ChatGPT (or similar) might have a significant competitive advantage?
Reminds me of how a bunch of eye-tracking research originally done at MIT to help create smart devices for autistic people to pick up on nonverbal communication got cancelled and repackaged in the adtech space.
They have a high market value outside of academia. Inside academia though they are all underpaid and overworked, and the modern version of “tenure” might carry prestige but it doesn’t carry the privilege it once did.
From a per mm2 performance standpoint things absolutely have slowed considerably. Gains are primarily being eked out via process advantage (which has slowed down) and larger chips (which has an ever-shrinking limit depending on the tech used)
Chiplets have slowed the slowdown in AI, but you can see in the gaming space how much things have slowed to get an idea of what is coming for enterprise.
The point of making these traits visible is because there's a loooooong history of white men monopolizing and PREVENTING minorities and women from participating. Or, even worse white men taking credit for the work done by women and minorities.
Do you know how much the FAA spent renaming “cockpit” and changing Notice to Airmen to Notice to Air Missions in all FAA publications? In the midst of a profound controller shortage, the FAA spent millions on changing words.
If people want to criticize the current changes as wasting money, then it’s intellectually dishonest not to call out other agencies such as the FAA for their nonsense.
If I spend a lot of campaign time suggesting I’m the fiscally responsible one and you’re not, I don’t think “neither were you!” Is a meaningful response when you note my irresponsibility.
At some point I should be answerable for not representing myself properly without just playing little kid “I’m rubber and you’re glue” games, right?
That's a highly biased source. I recommend the WaPo article it links to or even the report itself I've linked below. The relevant part is on pages 108 through 135, so ~27 pages out of 217, most of which is title cards, references, and graphs. The document itself uses "cockpit" repeatedly throughout, so these suggestions weren't proactively adopted.
Since asexual terms are preferred, it was renamed to chickenpit.
Joke aside, the term comes from the navy, the place where the cockswain/coxswain, the person in charge of a boat, is. Should that post be renamed to flight swain?
If we're going to make such efforts to change words, I think it's time for a new artificial non-ambiguous language as the international standard. That way, we could learn our local dialects, and the common tongue where all the historical warts are corrected. As a bonus, computers would be more efficient with a non-ambiguous natural language.
> Do you know how much the FAA spent renaming “cockpit” and changing Notice to Airmen to Notice to Air Missions in all FAA publications?
Do you? Because I'm guessing it was virtually nothing. That does not sound like a particularly costly activity.
> If people want to criticize the current changes as wasting money, then it’s intellectually dishonest not to call out other agencies
This is the definition of whataboutism. Also, "wasting money" is not near the top of my list of the problems with government agencies being told they're not allowed to mention women.
I’m someone who was, uh, skeptical of the DEI stuff. One of my biggest complaints was that it seemed to be much ado about nothing. Re-writing laws and policies to fill them with fluff.
This is EXACTLY the same thing, it is 100% virtue signaling and we are burning so much time, money, and goodwill on fucking bullshit nonsense
Meanwhile the economy is in shambles, the executive branch is systematically destroying the rest of the government, and China and Russia grow ever stronger and ever more disdainful of us
I would elect a black trans president in a heartbeat if I thought they could win the inevitable conflict over Taiwan. It IS an existential threat and the most immediate one meaning it is the HIGHEST PRIORITY
And before anyone starts pointing fingers I did not vote for Trump in any election
It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups.
Improving the opportunities available to people tends to improve economic productivity, so it's hard to argue it is a total waste of money.
On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Purges of this sort don't have any real economic motivations, it's pure ideology.
One was more of an investment, the other is more destruction.
Of course while the DEI scrubbing is dangerous to just some people, the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
> It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups.
Not really. It's all language games.
This is just the mirror image of the liberal conceit they can magically change reality by forcing people to use different words or over-elevating some story (old or new) for ideological reasons.
The lesson from this is that it's all stupid, not just my-side's version, and it should stop.
> trying to empower
> tends to improve
> hard to argue
Lots of weasel words there.
> On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist.
Lots of absolutism there
It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful.
That’s why the guy below me
> So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea
Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good.
The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is.
> the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
> What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
I don’t have a dog in this hunt (I didn’t vote for either of them), but I think its fair to say that Trump seems to be pretty much trying to do most everything he promised in his campaign (which obviously attracted enough votes for him to win). Perhaps people just believe that politicians say a bunch of shit to get elected—then do something else and never expected this level of follow through.
Either way, this is what America voted for…and are apparently what we are going to get.
They do have a cooling effect on the economy though, so perhaps the other motivation for keeping them around was to prevent run-away inflation. While Tariffs can raise the cost of goods, they do not in-and-of-themselves create inflation unless you attempt to pump money back into the economy to repair the damage being caused by your tariffs.
reply