• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle


  • On the discomfort side, couldn’t they have the collection and recording happen in the background? If no other passengers or staff can see the numbers, there’s less of a chance of someone feeling uncomfortable with the process.

    The weighing process involves humans, so that wouldn’t be possible.

    Their average intelligence being what it is, when instructed to have one person on the scale, sometimes it’s one, sometimes two, sometimes two and a stroller. Sometimes somehow a horse ends up on the scale and no one really understands how, including that horse.

    Unless you check the weight, you don’t know what exactly was weighed.









  • You can’t counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know.

    Sure you can. You can also win any argument by replying “no you”. You just don’t leave a very good impression if you do that.

    He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

    This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

    It’s probably just going to fall under existing law and the owner of the AI replaces the owner of the copy that was made (so same laws, no exception). Not sure what law that is exactly, but I assume it involves royalties and the like and there’s an exception for certain things, like news and maybe art.

    Here’s an article on it from the perspective of painting. I don’t see why it would any different if it’s an AI “painter”. It’s still technically painting what it does.



  • Society isn’t really good at knowing what it requires. And sometimes it’s better to be cautious. Also capitalism breaks down in certain markets, one of which is the “job market”.

    Any market that involves a lot of players and little oversight will get manipulated like crazy, including the job market. Employers try to counter that, but in the end the people that are best at getting hired for a job get that job, not the people that are best at doing that job. How could it not be?

    And that includes the jobs of the people that do the hiring. So it’s a market that’s rife with inefficiencies.


  • It’s not just that the person would be expensive. Systems like that require system specific knowledge. So it’s possible that it would take an outsider 3 months of study to get to the point where they can fix an issue properly in 5 minutes.

    You can’t make a baby in 1 month with 9 mothers. Some tasks just have an upfront cost and SOME IT automation jobs are like that.

    And yes, you can try and do bodge job after bodge job “just to keep it going”. And that works for some time. But eventually the small mistakes end up causing large outages. And then you need someone that can piece together how the small issues cause big outages.





  • Where Wansley and Weinstein break important new ground is on the other legal standard set by the Supreme Court: recoupment of losses. If Uber and WeWork and the rest of the unicorns are perpetual money losers, it sounds like the standard isn’t met. But Wansley and Weinstein point out that it can be — even if the companies never earn a dime and even if everyone who invests in the companies, post-IPO, loses their bets. That’s because the venture capitalists who seeded the company do profit from the predatory pricing. They get in, get a hefty return on their investment, and get out before the whole scheme collapses.

    Yep. The venture capitalists found a loophole.