Yeeeeeah. Not that I don't trust Google to perform sociology studies, but I've seen how they respond to requested feedback.
This "2 year study" is actually just a survey to 5000 employees and a 100 member focus group. When your boss asks you how well you're working, does anyone actually say they're not working? Who would slit their own throat like that?
It would be good if remote work really took off. There'd be a mass exodus from all the high cost of living cities. We'd be able to bank more of our paycheck. Work would be done cheaper. (hmmm... and my house, a major investment of mine, would tank in value just as I try to compete with the Chinese and Indian masses... I take it back, no, remote work sucks!)
Does your job actually offer any benefit to the world at large?
Yes, otherwise they wouldn't have a business model and wouldn't be in business and wouldn't pay me.
Does your company offer goods or services that are unique and essential?
For this price-point and manufacturing capabilities at time of contract, sure. Otherwise the client would have gone elsewhere. "Unique" isn't all that essential. A banana is a banana no matter how many are on the shelf. It doesn't have to be "Essenetial", it just has to be "Worth it".
Humans need food, water, shelter and energy.
Humans need a lot. See Maslow's heirarchy of needs.
Everything else is extra; non-essential
What is the purpose of civilization if not for recreation and art? What's the point of it all? There is a grand deal. A massive bit of bribary. Humans will be productive if you REWARD them. What's the reward I get for going to work? What can I buy with this money?
If consumers stop buying things they don't actually need, then the house of cards will collapse.
Parts of it, for sure.
Ham radio operators. These are the jobs that will survive the automation apocalypse.
It increases productivity and displaces workers from jobs. It's good for society on the whole but a REAL kick in the pants for the worker that used to have a job. The young can retrain (and hopefully had enough time seeing it coming to avoid the industry), some of the old can take an early retirement and tighten their belt, the ones in the middle are fucked.
You are correct that it's not all a zero-sum game. The economy can grow and shrink. If the economy grows, half of that is the fact that more people are buying and there's greater need for production, which leads to more jobs somewhere else. That's no longer true for, say, lights-out manufacturing. Having more sales does not increase labor hours. But of course they buy raw material, and we don've have fully automated mines and smelters and such....yet. But productivity is being seperated from employment. If tomarrow we had twice as many mouths to feed and farmland became critical and we had to increase food production ASAP.... we wouldn't really have that many more farmers.
After 200 years of automation, I'm still working an 8 hour day. why?
Because your grandfather (or great grandfather) fought and bled fighting against the company store to ensure you only have to work 8 hour days. But a lot of people ditch that victory and put in more hours for some ungodly reason.
Why can't we cut our hours down. Split every job in two, and let people do a 20 hour week. We have the technology. Why are we still selling hours of our lives to faceless corporations?
Because the company wants them to do so. Because we still live in a capitalist society where it not only matters how well you perform absolutely, but relatively to everyone else who would out-compete you. They have all the same automated tools that you do and if you ever slack, they'll undercut you and take your job. As intended. This is not a critic on America. The rest of the world also operates on this principle. Even China now. If you stop working as hard, or the chinese work harder, or cheaper, we'll have trade imbalance and they'll rise as a nation while we diminish. *cough*. Or at least not rise as much as we could. Which, honestly, isn't so bad. Raising China out of poverty has had GREAT outcomes on world metrics.
Because every alternative to capitalistic principles has lead to economic collapse and mass starvation.
every time there's a technological breakthrough of some sort human civilization has gone through this shit, and it's always temporary.
YEAH! Last time it was only three generations that the previously middle class weave guilders suffered soul-crushing 50% unemployment. Quite temporary.
Thank GOD the rustbelt isn't a thing. And I'm sure the decades-long trend of people moving away rural farms is just a temporary shift. I'm sure.
Relax, once they can track all items with cheap cameras and cheaper processing they'll just automatically tally your items and send you a bill as you walk out the door. It's at TRL 8 or 9. It's coming soon and will replace the concept of checking out. [Amazon's workign on it](https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/21/inside-amazons-surveillance-powered-no-checkout-convenience-store)
IFTTT, ie, bringing scripting to the masses. But they DO manage all passwords and keys. I'm REALLY not a fan of how opaque and proprietary the actual scripts are... namely because they would handle all my passwords and keys...
Also, I have a general distrust of any product or website that is ambiguous about just what the fuck it is that they do. Like "helps your apps and devices work together in new ways".... what an amazing non-answer. And the first I ran into this I fought for about 30 minutes just clicking around their webpage before something finally made it clear.
This is Slashdot though, take a couple hours and learn how to make a cronjob and bash script that can do everything that ifttt can do.
So it explains why "the number of workers in jobs that can be automated (in 2011) has fallen".
The only silver lining here is that it's been 14 years since they started demonstrating self-driving vehicles so the change might not be that quick and immediate, giving those in the industry time to move away. They've already had 14 years to see the writing on the wall. That said, the time between the first automated commercial semi-truck and 80+% being automated is going to be REAL short. It's going to hit fast as soon as they can make a buck.
Soon you can add 'every fast-food worker' to that list.
There is no soon, they're already on the list. And it's "most" fast-food workers. They'll still have someone that mops the floors and loads the hoppers. We're a long way from having a standardized way of interfacing semi-trucks with buildings and unloading stuff. Automated trucks will likely push that forward though.
(It's pretty clear what will replace them. Did you you mean "It's not clear what they will go do?") I think they're gonna starve. Hoepfully it'll be better than the three generations of soul-crushing 50% unemployment in the weaver's industry that we saw in the Industrial revolution. Yeah, those Luddites had a reason to be pissed. The problem was they blamed the new tech and got violent about it. They smashed looms, burned down a lot of wealthy estates, and the army shot them all up and put down their rebellion. But I don't think the Victorians who were fine with the Opium Wars in China and the Raj in India were going to shed too many tears for displaced workers outside of edinbourough.
The young can retrain. Go do something else. The old can retire, just with less savings than they would have had. It's the middle lot that are vested in the industry but haven't had the decades of payout that are really screwed. In general this is the current predicament that millenails are facing. More job competition for the remaining jobs, older workers not moving out, more debt, lower wages (although that one's likely from the econopocalypse in 2008). The factory jobs aren't there, there's practically no need for workers on farms. A "gig economy" is filling that void and those "jobs" suck. But times are good right now. They really are. The unemployment rate has steadily declined since 2008 and it's at record lows. HURZZAH! (Alas, that rate has never gotten so low without an economic crash following suit. Get ready for that "business cycle").
Ugh, a car "protecting you" and "doing what's best for everyone involved" is always going to be the same damn thing: In an oh-shit scenario, slow down, and try to come to a stop. No swerving, no bridges full of nuns, no trolly problem. Engineers are making this thing, not philosophers. That whole debate is bullshit technophiles wanking themselves.
Can We Build Ethics Into Automated Decision-Making?
Yes, if the algorithm is transparent, publicly published, and more or less straight-forward. Which is to say, if they're NOT ethical, people will bitch up a storm until it's fixed. Because democracy works. The exact same thing happens with, say, police department's policies on arresting people. There's a host of honestly vague and confusing algorithms set in law about when it's legal to arrest someone. We as the public have an equally vague sense of what those laws/rules/algorithms are and if a case comes forward where the law seems wrong, people complain, it gets political, and laws change. Case in point: Racial profiling is now illegal.
Same damn thing happens with or without the automation part. The only difference is if we expect a human to follow policy or a computer to follow programming. There will be deviations and blind-spots in the programmed algorithm just like there's humans that don't follow policy. Corruption will likely continue in some form or fashion. This is a boring and moot question from philosophers trying their damned hardest to forcefully insert a philosophical debate into an engineering problem. Stop that.
By promoting psychological stability and education in the masses so that these few never have any reasonable amount of political power. Instead of, say, amassing enough idiots that their ideal candidate gets elected to be the most powerful man in the world. A few powerless nut-cases will not be the end of us. But if there are enough of them that they RALLY together, to make a political movement. If there are enough of them that they can drown out the voice of reason, then we have a problem.
And that goes for you too. If you're honestly suggesting that we get rid of free anonymous connectivity.... that's downright anti-democratic. And you're being taken advantage of if someone has convinced you to give it up.
No. I refuse. I will fight back against that cultural momentum of corporations redefining what "ownership" and "sell/purchase" actually mean. I prefer products that are open and free. I try to self-host where possible. I void warranties. (And that bullshit sticker isn't legally binding anyway). I repair. I avoid products I can't repair. I don't own a 1984 wall-screen just so I can scream "play music". (Those things might be a useful product once they no longer need an internet connection. But until then, fuck no). And no I'm not going to rent a modem from the ISP, are you nuts? I advocate for the right to repair. I lament to others about the walled garden. I've annoyed all my family with the analogy of selling a suitcase with a brick in locked compartment. (and yeah I should stop that). I've written my rep and gotten a bullshit form letter back. I donate to the EFF.
Just stop buying this crap.
Now... I still buy a lot of this crap. I gave into Steam a while ago and yes, it absolutely infuriates me when I can't play a game because I'm offline. So now I veer towards GOG when I can. There's a sliding scale of how much a company respects the customers, and each string attached moves it over. Any competitor that can do the same thing, but also give me more respect gets my business.
Human creative achievement, because of the way it is socially embedded, will not succumb to advances in artificial intelligence.
Ok, have AI digest social media. All of it. Slashdot, reddit, facebook, tv, idle banter at the airport. AI is now "socially embedded". At least as much as you or I are. Probably more-so.
You have your Nature, what instincts you're given by your genes. And your Nurture, which is a collection of experiences you typically just parrot back and occasionally derive stuff from. There is nothing else. We can simulate and replicate both of those for AI. It's a lot of fucking work though and they're not yet clever enough to retain and apply all that learning to a broader scope. They are most certainly less capable than human, currently, at broad general reasoning. Also, just walking around and staying ride-side up. We've got some CRAZY levels of optimization and dedicated hardware specifically for those tasks.
If there is greatness in the product, it is only an accident.
Agreed, a good portion of Shakespeare's work and fame is a lucky fluke of timing and place. Less than the pile of monkeys, but not much less.
but if we know that the output is merely the result of some arbitrary act or algorithmic formalism, we cannot accept it as the expression of a vision for human good.
Sounds like user error with what humans accept. We're pretty terrible historically at thinking ourselves to be more special than we really are.
Do you honestly believe that AMAZON has any chance of failure?
Presuming that amazon is not going to be a failed business, the distinction you made between subsidies and tax relief disappears and the two are effectively the same.
We ARE a capitalist nation, but not purely capitalist because we have welfare, social security, and we bail out banks when shit hits the fan. And AS a capitalist nation we need to safeguard against those with capital controlling the market, abusing their market-share, gaming the system, and avoiding competition. That shit is illegal for a reason. Without competition there is no free market and capitalism fails. If they engage in anti-capitalistic behavior, like soliciting bribes from municipalities in exchange for relocating their headquarters, then they should be fined and the leadership put in prison.
If NewYorkers passed on this opportunity to make billions, then some other community can have the opportunity to make multiple billions without funneling money into Amazon's coffers. Economics is not a zero-sum game, but this decision is absolutely a zero-sum game deciding how the pie is going to be divided. And I applaud NY for calling bullshit on Amazon's extortion.
Is this a surprise to anyone? The only shock here is that people actually use twitter.
A newsletter app with a character limit? Some ad-hoc-turned-features like hastags and name drops? THIS became a major tech company!? Twitter is made for shout-outs and declarations.
"Pizza is good".
"Shoutout to my favorite pizza: Deep dish".
Slogans, catchphrases, snide retorts. Twitter is made for low-effort shit-posts. It is the cheap pulp magazine of the modern telecommunications age. And some people like that. A lot of people. Because it doesn't take a lot of effort to read. There's not much there. The messages are short and the idea aren't going to be deep or nuanced or backed by citation because there just ain't enough room for that. It's full of twits.
Of course not, there's keyboard shortcuts. Which make more of a clack, than a click.
But, if a graph is labeled "Actions Per Minute (APM)", and has three curves, and the orange one is labeled "TLO", and some area under the curve goes up to the little hash mark labeled with "2000".... Maaaan, I guess I'm just too dumb to figure out what that means. Could be anything really. Who knows?
But I get you. I do. It's the stupidest thing to see these people pointlessly clicking around in some vain attempt to keep their APM METRICS up. Pointless, stupid, an appeal to a meaningless stat. And... they do it while streaming. Like, "hey, look at me, I'm a metrics-gaming tool". Blows my mind.
Of course there's more to micro than APM. There's also lag. Which is ALSO in that same fucking chart everyone is apparently are too god-damned lazy to read. They instilled a minimum lag of 67ms.
ALLLLL that said, we ARE talking about a bot that, in a fight on the ramp, repeatedly targeted a pile of rocks instead of the enemy standing next to the rocks. But I don't know, maybe you've never played starcraft and have a reason to be this ignorant, but that wouldn't explain the bigotry.
No, they limited it's actions per minute. MaNa typically had a higher APM. But dont' take my word for it, they released the whole histrogram Poor TLO peaked at 2000 APM! Like... DUDE, chill. Or at least cut back on the meth.
, the human readjusted, and thought of strategies that would defend against the superior micro
Not really. In the game I saw, Alphastar got really confused by guardian drop harrasses and... couldn't figure out why it's ground units couldn't reach the air. What they changed, was that it didn't have total (leagal) knowledge of the entire map without having to move the screen. Now it only know what it moved the screen to. And that killed it. Or it didn't have enough training time. Shrug.
Well of course it was cheating. They gave it TOTAL AWARENESS of the whole map (that it could legally see via fog-of-war rules). They fudged this one by limiting it's "screen changes" as in, while it knew everything that was happening across the map, it could only choose one area to issue commands to. They ALSO had some games were it had to use those screens to see what was happening at those locations (just like a human). And it lost. Arguably, it didn't have enough training time with that setup.
It only played a single map. That's... not that big of a deal. They could have multiplied it's learning time per map. Easy.
It also only played protoss. They could have multiplied it's learning time per race (3). Easy. And most humans do this too. I play protoss as well.
Slashdot Mirror
That's some majorly fluffy bullshit. Vague, undefined, unenforceable, mystic...
How about we swap out "AI" for "decisions made by politicians and CEOs" and see how far that gets us?
Yeeeeeah. Not that I don't trust Google to perform sociology studies, but I've seen how they respond to requested feedback.
This "2 year study" is actually just a survey to 5000 employees and a 100 member focus group. When your boss asks you how well you're working, does anyone actually say they're not working? Who would slit their own throat like that?
It would be good if remote work really took off. There'd be a mass exodus from all the high cost of living cities. We'd be able to bank more of our paycheck. Work would be done cheaper. (hmmm... and my house, a major investment of mine, would tank in value just as I try to compete with the Chinese and Indian masses... I take it back, no, remote work sucks!)
nothing *but* disadvantages for the person doing the renting.
...Price?
Does your job actually offer any benefit to the world at large?
Yes, otherwise they wouldn't have a business model and wouldn't be in business and wouldn't pay me.
Does your company offer goods or services that are unique and essential?
For this price-point and manufacturing capabilities at time of contract, sure. Otherwise the client would have gone elsewhere.
"Unique" isn't all that essential. A banana is a banana no matter how many are on the shelf. It doesn't have to be "Essenetial", it just has to be "Worth it".
Humans need food, water, shelter and energy.
Humans need a lot. See Maslow's heirarchy of needs.
Everything else is extra; non-essential
What is the purpose of civilization if not for recreation and art? What's the point of it all? There is a grand deal. A massive bit of bribary. Humans will be productive if you REWARD them. What's the reward I get for going to work? What can I buy with this money?
If consumers stop buying things they don't actually need, then the house of cards will collapse.
Parts of it, for sure.
Ham radio operators. These are the jobs that will survive the automation apocalypse.
Ok, now you're just fucking with us.
It increases productivity and displaces workers from jobs. It's good for society on the whole but a REAL kick in the pants for the worker that used to have a job. The young can retrain (and hopefully had enough time seeing it coming to avoid the industry), some of the old can take an early retirement and tighten their belt, the ones in the middle are fucked.
You are correct that it's not all a zero-sum game. The economy can grow and shrink. If the economy grows, half of that is the fact that more people are buying and there's greater need for production, which leads to more jobs somewhere else. That's no longer true for, say, lights-out manufacturing. Having more sales does not increase labor hours. But of course they buy raw material, and we don've have fully automated mines and smelters and such. ...yet. But productivity is being seperated from employment. If tomarrow we had twice as many mouths to feed and farmland became critical and we had to increase food production ASAP.... we wouldn't really have that many more farmers.
After 200 years of automation, I'm still working an 8 hour day. why?
Because your grandfather (or great grandfather) fought and bled fighting against the company store to ensure you only have to work 8 hour days. But a lot of people ditch that victory and put in more hours for some ungodly reason.
Why can't we cut our hours down. Split every job in two, and let people do a 20 hour week. We have the technology. Why are we still selling hours of our lives to faceless corporations?
Because the company wants them to do so. Because we still live in a capitalist society where it not only matters how well you perform absolutely, but relatively to everyone else who would out-compete you. They have all the same automated tools that you do and if you ever slack, they'll undercut you and take your job. As intended. This is not a critic on America. The rest of the world also operates on this principle. Even China now. If you stop working as hard, or the chinese work harder, or cheaper, we'll have trade imbalance and they'll rise as a nation while we diminish. *cough*. Or at least not rise as much as we could. Which, honestly, isn't so bad. Raising China out of poverty has had GREAT outcomes on world metrics.
Because every alternative to capitalistic principles has lead to economic collapse and mass starvation.
every time there's a technological breakthrough of some sort human civilization has gone through this shit, and it's always temporary.
YEAH! Last time it was only three generations that the previously middle class weave guilders suffered soul-crushing 50% unemployment. Quite temporary.
Thank GOD the rustbelt isn't a thing. And I'm sure the decades-long trend of people moving away rural farms is just a temporary shift. I'm sure.
Relax, once they can track all items with cheap cameras and cheaper processing they'll just automatically tally your items and send you a bill as you walk out the door. It's at TRL 8 or 9. It's coming soon and will replace the concept of checking out. [Amazon's workign on it](https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/21/inside-amazons-surveillance-powered-no-checkout-convenience-store)
IFTTT, ie, bringing scripting to the masses. But they DO manage all passwords and keys. I'm REALLY not a fan of how opaque and proprietary the actual scripts are... namely because they would handle all my passwords and keys...
Also, I have a general distrust of any product or website that is ambiguous about just what the fuck it is that they do. Like "helps your apps and devices work together in new ways".... what an amazing non-answer. And the first I ran into this I fought for about 30 minutes just clicking around their webpage before something finally made it clear.
This is Slashdot though, take a couple hours and learn how to make a cronjob and bash script that can do everything that ifttt can do.
So it explains why "the number of workers in jobs that can be automated (in 2011) has fallen".
The only silver lining here is that it's been 14 years since they started demonstrating self-driving vehicles so the change might not be that quick and immediate, giving those in the industry time to move away. They've already had 14 years to see the writing on the wall. That said, the time between the first automated commercial semi-truck and 80+% being automated is going to be REAL short. It's going to hit fast as soon as they can make a buck.
Soon you can add 'every fast-food worker' to that list.
There is no soon, they're already on the list. And it's "most" fast-food workers. They'll still have someone that mops the floors and loads the hoppers. We're a long way from having a standardized way of interfacing semi-trucks with buildings and unloading stuff. Automated trucks will likely push that forward though.
(It's pretty clear what will replace them. Did you you mean "It's not clear what they will go do?") I think they're gonna starve. Hoepfully it'll be better than the three generations of soul-crushing 50% unemployment in the weaver's industry that we saw in the Industrial revolution. Yeah, those Luddites had a reason to be pissed. The problem was they blamed the new tech and got violent about it. They smashed looms, burned down a lot of wealthy estates, and the army shot them all up and put down their rebellion. But I don't think the Victorians who were fine with the Opium Wars in China and the Raj in India were going to shed too many tears for displaced workers outside of edinbourough.
The young can retrain. Go do something else. The old can retire, just with less savings than they would have had. It's the middle lot that are vested in the industry but haven't had the decades of payout that are really screwed. In general this is the current predicament that millenails are facing. More job competition for the remaining jobs, older workers not moving out, more debt, lower wages (although that one's likely from the econopocalypse in 2008). The factory jobs aren't there, there's practically no need for workers on farms. A "gig economy" is filling that void and those "jobs" suck. But times are good right now. They really are. The unemployment rate has steadily declined since 2008 and it's at record lows. HURZZAH! (Alas, that rate has never gotten so low without an economic crash following suit. Get ready for that "business cycle").
Ugh, a car "protecting you" and "doing what's best for everyone involved" is always going to be the same damn thing: In an oh-shit scenario, slow down, and try to come to a stop. No swerving, no bridges full of nuns, no trolly problem. Engineers are making this thing, not philosophers. That whole debate is bullshit technophiles wanking themselves.
Can We Build Ethics Into Automated Decision-Making?
Yes, if the algorithm is transparent, publicly published, and more or less straight-forward. Which is to say, if they're NOT ethical, people will bitch up a storm until it's fixed. Because democracy works. The exact same thing happens with, say, police department's policies on arresting people. There's a host of honestly vague and confusing algorithms set in law about when it's legal to arrest someone. We as the public have an equally vague sense of what those laws/rules/algorithms are and if a case comes forward where the law seems wrong, people complain, it gets political, and laws change. Case in point: Racial profiling is now illegal.
Same damn thing happens with or without the automation part. The only difference is if we expect a human to follow policy or a computer to follow programming. There will be deviations and blind-spots in the programmed algorithm just like there's humans that don't follow policy. Corruption will likely continue in some form or fashion. This is a boring and moot question from philosophers trying their damned hardest to forcefully insert a philosophical debate into an engineering problem. Stop that.
Truth, but all of these people were on the chopping block in 2011. The TRL was 6ish and is now approaching 9.
The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge was for autonomous vehicles. This stuff has been a long time in coming.
What I want added to that list are: Lawyers, doctors, pilots, politicians, and program managers.
If their job gets automated... they no longer work there.
Here, lemme rephrase that a little: "Number of remaining workers in jobs that can be automated falls."
By promoting psychological stability and education in the masses so that these few never have any reasonable amount of political power. Instead of, say, amassing enough idiots that their ideal candidate gets elected to be the most powerful man in the world. A few powerless nut-cases will not be the end of us. But if there are enough of them that they RALLY together, to make a political movement. If there are enough of them that they can drown out the voice of reason, then we have a problem.
We need to teach people critical thinking. Don't be a sucker.
And that goes for you too. If you're honestly suggesting that we get rid of free anonymous connectivity.... that's downright anti-democratic. And you're being taken advantage of if someone has convinced you to give it up.
Get used to it.
No. I refuse. I will fight back against that cultural momentum of corporations redefining what "ownership" and "sell/purchase" actually mean. I prefer products that are open and free. I try to self-host where possible. I void warranties. (And that bullshit sticker isn't legally binding anyway). I repair. I avoid products I can't repair. I don't own a 1984 wall-screen just so I can scream "play music". (Those things might be a useful product once they no longer need an internet connection. But until then, fuck no). And no I'm not going to rent a modem from the ISP, are you nuts? I advocate for the right to repair. I lament to others about the walled garden. I've annoyed all my family with the analogy of selling a suitcase with a brick in locked compartment. (and yeah I should stop that). I've written my rep and gotten a bullshit form letter back. I donate to the EFF.
Just stop buying this crap.
Now... I still buy a lot of this crap. I gave into Steam a while ago and yes, it absolutely infuriates me when I can't play a game because I'm offline. So now I veer towards GOG when I can. There's a sliding scale of how much a company respects the customers, and each string attached moves it over. Any competitor that can do the same thing, but also give me more respect gets my business.
Human creative achievement, because of the way it is socially embedded, will not succumb to advances in artificial intelligence.
Ok, have AI digest social media. All of it. Slashdot, reddit, facebook, tv, idle banter at the airport. AI is now "socially embedded". At least as much as you or I are. Probably more-so.
You have your Nature, what instincts you're given by your genes. And your Nurture, which is a collection of experiences you typically just parrot back and occasionally derive stuff from. There is nothing else. We can simulate and replicate both of those for AI. It's a lot of fucking work though and they're not yet clever enough to retain and apply all that learning to a broader scope. They are most certainly less capable than human, currently, at broad general reasoning. Also, just walking around and staying ride-side up. We've got some CRAZY levels of optimization and dedicated hardware specifically for those tasks.
If there is greatness in the product, it is only an accident.
Agreed, a good portion of Shakespeare's work and fame is a lucky fluke of timing and place. Less than the pile of monkeys, but not much less.
but if we know that the output is merely the result of some arbitrary act or algorithmic formalism, we cannot accept it as the expression of a vision for human good.
Sounds like user error with what humans accept. We're pretty terrible historically at thinking ourselves to be more special than we really are.
Let me guess, the actual issue is some overly broad software patent.
He scans barcodes on mail and looks up a database.
Do you honestly believe that AMAZON has any chance of failure?
Presuming that amazon is not going to be a failed business, the distinction you made between subsidies and tax relief disappears and the two are effectively the same.
We ARE a capitalist nation, but not purely capitalist because we have welfare, social security, and we bail out banks when shit hits the fan. And AS a capitalist nation we need to safeguard against those with capital controlling the market, abusing their market-share, gaming the system, and avoiding competition. That shit is illegal for a reason. Without competition there is no free market and capitalism fails. If they engage in anti-capitalistic behavior, like soliciting bribes from municipalities in exchange for relocating their headquarters, then they should be fined and the leadership put in prison.
If NewYorkers passed on this opportunity to make billions, then some other community can have the opportunity to make multiple billions without funneling money into Amazon's coffers. Economics is not a zero-sum game, but this decision is absolutely a zero-sum game deciding how the pie is going to be divided. And I applaud NY for calling bullshit on Amazon's extortion.
I swear, if any of my shadowrun players show up with 200 karma that fell off a back of a truck...
Is this a surprise to anyone? The only shock here is that people actually use twitter.
A newsletter app with a character limit? Some ad-hoc-turned-features like hastags and name drops? THIS became a major tech company!?
Twitter is made for shout-outs and declarations.
"Pizza is good".
"Shoutout to my favorite pizza: Deep dish".
Slogans, catchphrases, snide retorts. Twitter is made for low-effort shit-posts. It is the cheap pulp magazine of the modern telecommunications age. And some people like that. A lot of people. Because it doesn't take a lot of effort to read. There's not much there. The messages are short and the idea aren't going to be deep or nuanced or backed by citation because there just ain't enough room for that. It's full of twits.
It's all just a meat market.
Of course not, there's keyboard shortcuts. Which make more of a clack, than a click.
But, if a graph is labeled "Actions Per Minute (APM)", and has three curves, and the orange one is labeled "TLO", and some area under the curve goes up to the little hash mark labeled with "2000".... Maaaan, I guess I'm just too dumb to figure out what that means. Could be anything really. Who knows?
But I get you. I do. It's the stupidest thing to see these people pointlessly clicking around in some vain attempt to keep their APM METRICS up. Pointless, stupid, an appeal to a meaningless stat. And... they do it while streaming. Like, "hey, look at me, I'm a metrics-gaming tool". Blows my mind.
Of course there's more to micro than APM. There's also lag. Which is ALSO in that same fucking chart everyone is apparently are too god-damned lazy to read. They instilled a minimum lag of 67ms.
ALLLLL that said, we ARE talking about a bot that, in a fight on the ramp, repeatedly targeted a pile of rocks instead of the enemy standing next to the rocks. But I don't know, maybe you've never played starcraft and have a reason to be this ignorant, but that wouldn't explain the bigotry.
DeepMind won with inhumanly superior micro
Like mistakenly shooting piles of rock!
No, they limited it's actions per minute. MaNa typically had a higher APM. But dont' take my word for it, they released the whole histrogram Poor TLO peaked at 2000 APM! Like... DUDE, chill. Or at least cut back on the meth.
, the human readjusted, and thought of strategies that would defend against the superior micro
Not really. In the game I saw, Alphastar got really confused by guardian drop harrasses and... couldn't figure out why it's ground units couldn't reach the air. What they changed, was that it didn't have total (leagal) knowledge of the entire map without having to move the screen. Now it only know what it moved the screen to. And that killed it. Or it didn't have enough training time. Shrug.
Because there are similarities between these strategy games and professional jobs. The lesson is pretty clear: AI is coming for knowledge worker jobs.
Well of course it was cheating. They gave it TOTAL AWARENESS of the whole map (that it could legally see via fog-of-war rules). They fudged this one by limiting it's "screen changes" as in, while it knew everything that was happening across the map, it could only choose one area to issue commands to. They ALSO had some games were it had to use those screens to see what was happening at those locations (just like a human). And it lost. Arguably, it didn't have enough training time with that setup.
It only played a single map. That's... not that big of a deal. They could have multiplied it's learning time per map. Easy.
It also only played protoss. They could have multiplied it's learning time per race (3). Easy. And most humans do this too. I play protoss as well.