u/the_lamou

And yet when I try this at Crunch Fitness, the uneducated louts throw me out. No respect for the classics.

The problem is that no matter how foolproof you build something, nature will respond by building a bigger fool.

You don't really need to change the PTFE tubes. There's no problem with running filament through an oversized tube. You would just need an extruder/tool-head that can support it.

And the advantage is that you can get much MUCH higher throughput rate. There's a reason a lot of commercial / professional machines still use 2.85mm.

I wouldn't say zero social skills is the issue. The biggest issues we've had are: - People applying to positions that they aren't even a little bit qualified to hold. Not just they don't have all of the requirements, but they have never worked in my industry or in this kind of position and can't even explain what the position does. - People applying to so many positions that they don't remember which one ours is. - People showing up to interviews completely unprepared and having no clue what the position is, whether it's full time or part time, what the job responsibilities are, etc. - People who can't follow basic directions like the not very subtle but very easy to follow anti-bot component in our application instructions. - My personal favorite, people who have no idea what jobs pay and what their work is worth. I'm sorry, kids, but outside of a tiny handful of specialized fields you aren't getting $125k at your first job ever with no relevant experience and a generic degree from a third-tier university.

What fuckng AI is gonna be able to effectively do an onsite health or building inspection?

The kind that, at most, requires a human earning minimum wage to walk around carrying several cameras?

What fucking soulless AI without understanding or empathy for the human experience is gonna be an effective therapist or medical doctor?

Neither of those jobs requires empathy, they require effective diagnosis (a purely analytical and pattern-matching activity which AI systems are already better at than humans and have been for about 20-30 years now,) and effective behavior modification techniques which are often found in much greater quantity in conmen and scammers than in earnest, empathetic people. Think about how hard banks, for example, try to keep old people from being scammed and how easy it is for scammers to convince old people that a beautiful young woman is madly in love with a 70 year old loser who just needs to pay for her visa.

No, not literally every fucking job is gonna be replaced by AI.

I never said it would. I said that understanding how to use AI effectively was going to become a critical employment skill. With some rare exceptions for jobs that combine physical presence, high manual dexterity, and distance from a controlled environment — things like skilled trades, for example. And even there, using AI will become a critical skill — a handyman that can use AI to diagnose a broken system, fabricate a replacement part, and install it in an hour will outcompete a guy who comes in, spends several hours digging around, and then says he'll order a couple parts to test that'll be here in a few days.

Because why would the people in power allow their slaves to leave? The Culture would have to come in with military force to make it happen and then you end up with the kind of civilization-destroying war the Culture is trying so hard to avoid.

No you wouldn't. It's made very clear that Azad is multiple orders of magnitude less technologically advanced than The Culture, and is intimated that the single picket ship that brings Gurgeh to Azad could plausibly single-handedly hold off their entire fleet, and a GSV absolutely could hence why they don't want the GSV dropping Gurgeh off.

You wouldn't have a "civilization-destroying war." You would have a rapid disarmament (since the culture is perfectly capable of completely destroying a primitive civilization's ability to make war,) followed by a controlled evacuation, followed by the higher caste Azadians whining impotently.

Look at Zakalwe's failed attempt at doing good

Oh, great example. The guy who's entire schtick is that he always almost succeeds but ultimately fails miserably because he simultaneously thinks too big and not big enough. The entire point of Zakalwe is that he cannot win because he only thinks mechanically, "the use of weapons." His failure is not an indictment of his cause or his methods: they're a plot device.

Now the Empire ramps up its external conquests to bring in more slaves to replace them

That's not how they got slaves. They enslaved their own via a hereditary caste system. And also, preventing them from taking slaves would have been equally easy.

imposes even more tyranny to prevent any future threats to their power, and fractures into multiple factions trying to seize control of the Empire over the corpses of billions of their rivals.

1. How exactly would that be any worse than the empire at the start of the book, which I'll remind you had hidden ultraporn channels?
2. Don't you think that the ending of that book would also result in the fracture of the empire into multiple competing factions, violently and explosively?

You've set up two counterfactuals, but failed to establish that they would be in any way worse or even different than the situations described in the book. This whole rambling rebuttal to OP boils down to "but it would somehow be magically worse than the absolute awfullness that already happens!"

No, that's pretty much every field. If you can hire one person who can do the work of five, you're going to hire that person instead of the one person who can only do the work of one.

Also, AI might be here to stay, but I still don’t have to use it

Correct. But let's say I'm hiring some engineers. One of them uses AI to generate recursive FEM-informed topology optimization loops and can work on five projects simultaneously; the other does everything by hand and can only work on one or two projects simultaneously, and doesn't optimize results in real-time. Who do you think I'm going to hire?

None of them got there without some amount of cruelty.

None of ANY of us got anywhere without a tremendous amount of cruelty. It's such a fundamental, bedrock function of all human society that we invented moral philosophy just so we could have a framework for ignoring the general background radiation of cruelty that we move through. 1.5 to 2.5 million infants and toddlers will experience homelessness this year, and you will find some mechanism that allows you to start your small part in that by blaming someone else.

We're all complicit, and no, it doesn't matter who's more complicit and who's less. Not to the kid freezing to death, anyway.

Lololololol

I garuntee you people will be fine without using AI.

Well, I for one would be much more comfortable using an AI for environmental engineering projects than an engineer who can't spell guarantee despite having access to autocorrect and spellcheck.

But sure, go ahead and believe what you want. Personally, I know that I've cut hiring targets for 2027 from 10 to 2 because I was able to automate away eight potential positions.

You don’t have to hop on every big tech trend the billionaires shove down your throat.

"Oooga Booga Billionaires!"

My first AI startup was founded in 2015. It's a "big trend" for people who get all their news from TikTok. It's "the natural next step in 60 years of computing, now several decades in the making" for some of us, though. And regardless of how many opinions you absorb through cultural osmosis without ever once examining them, generative AI is here to stay.

So wait... if you admit that the technology can eliminate labor, doesn't that also imply that most people are laboring unnecessarily and not producing anything unique or of any real value? Why would you support a system where people perform busywork for 40+ hours a week?

It's unpopular with people who have no expertise in AI or its use, while growing in popularity among researchers and experts. See point 10. It's also not unpopular with 18-49 year olds, the majority of whom (53%) interact with a chatbot at least once a day.

So the three conclusions we can draw from your source are: 1. You don't bother reading the sources you cite comprehensively, instead finding a single contextless sound bite (probably from the Google AI summary) and hyoerfocusing on it even when it's much more nuanced than the argument you're making. 2. Most of the public's opinion is, as with most public opinions, a bunch of morons making a decision based on absolutely nothing and then constructing increasingly-elaborate justifications for a position that they didn't reason themselves into. 3. And as usual, it's mostly old people being loud-mouthed assholes and deciding that they should never ever have to learn anything new.

You do realize that AI is wildly unpopular right?

Oh, cool! Are we evaluating technologies by popularity now? That's awesome! Oh hey, you know that EVs are wildly unpopular in the US? Guess that's a failed technology!

Are you saying that all the adults are also morons?

Yes. 100%. The average person could disappear from the face of the earth without anything meaningful being lost. I'm really really going to enjoy watching people realize that their contribution to humanity was basically busywork only after their job is taken over by a promotive AI.

Optimally? All 60. Realistically, probably about half at any given time with burst capacity to ask 60. But it also doesn't matter. You don't size the constraint to the best case scenario, you size it to the worst.

And even two twenty amp circuits is 40% of a 100A panel and 20% of a 200A one. That's a sizeable percentage of your limiting factor.

What do you mean what’s it gotta do with AI?!

Literally what I said. "Making non-concerning sexual images of others" is not an intrinsic property of AI. As demonstrated by the fact that people have been doing this since scissors and glue was the dominant photo manipulation technique.

People are making AI programs to nudify without consent

Correct. They were also doing so ten years ago. And twenty. And forty.

Yes, it should be fucking regulated.

It already is. At least in jurisdictions that don't suck. Many places already have laws against creating and/or sharing nonconsensual sexual images of others.

Oh, what would your proposal be? Just let it all slide?!

My proposal would be that we don't ban hammers just because you can bash someone's skull in with one. Especially when we already have laws against the objectionable activity.

We dont need AI to be prepared for the worlds.

Yeah, I heard a lot of this one about personal computers and the internet, too.

Lot of boomers cant operate their fucking smart phones are doing fine

I bet if you drew a Venn diagram of "boomers who can't use the internet and personal computers effectively" and "boomers who are doing fine," the overlap would be small enough that it would almost be two circles.

I'm ignoring that you changed the criteria to "smart phones" because no one actually needs to know how to operate their smartphone, because smartphones are entirely unnecessary to any kind of accomplishment.

What does this have to do with AI? Do you also suggest that we ban Photoshop? People have been using Photoshop to make porn of people without their consent for thirty years now.

It sounds like you don't actually have any real reason to dislike AI, but have decided that you do and are now acting like individual misuses of the technology are the reasons. You began with a conclusion and are now throwing random bad things at the wall to justify your unsupported beliefs. Who taught you how to structure a persuasive argument? I hope they're not still teaching, because they did a terrible job.

I remember this exact sentiment, if not these exact words, being used when I was in middle and high school and we started rolling out computers and internet access heavily.

"Why are we teaching kids to cite webpages instead of making them go to the library to find real research? Why are we teaching them to type instead of making them write everything in cursive? Computers/the Internet are going to kill critical thinking skills/penmanship/research skills/reading!"

Schools should teach kids how to use the tools that are going to be the core of how things are done in the future, not whatever arbitrary point some Boomer thinks technology should be frozen at. We're not the Amish.

And as a note about "doing fucking research," the actual research on AI use and cognitive offloading is actually pretty consistent: people that understand AI and its role in whatever task they're performing demonstrate no cognitive decline or laziness whatsoever, while people who use AI without knowing how to beat integrate it show significant declines in thinking. This is one of the few consistent throughlines in neurocognitive research on AI use.

So your proposal, that we just send children out into the world unprepared, is both profoundly damaging to thought AND profoundly ignorant of the research. Sounds like maybe you should have been taught better in school.

Nah, not really. Everyone is a moron at 15. You have about 5 years of actual life experience, poor emotional regulation due to the hormones flooding your body, and zero real context to evaluate anything against. Everything is the biggest deal ever because your comparison set is "I got a D on a test and my girlfriend of two weeks broke up with me."

Is it? Because I have zero issues with the latest version on Android. Never had a bug, actually. Are you running it on a super old phone or are like five OS updates behind?

The Maverick sells like hotcakes, though, so sounds like the Fathom will be a huge success.

Yes. In low power mode. Which is one node running at a time. Each rack will contain thirty nodes.

Meanwhile, I can't convince my electrician to install a 300A panel because he doesn't believe I'll ever use it. Bro... I have telemetry from my server rack. It can, and has, pulled 1,800W in low-power mode. And it's one of two.

I'm saying that all your upgrade showed is that you were using really terrible original rods and the rail was better. That doesn't mean that rails are better than rods in general, just that you are starting with terrible rods.

For the first time since the 1990s! They must be so popular!