If someone thinks about playing lottery just tell them to bet on '1 2 3 4 5 6' (or whatever the number of numbers in your lottery). Once you realize this combination is as probable as any other the chances of winning seem a lot smaller.
ExLisper
joined 1 year ago
I go to work 50/50 by electric car or analog bike. Most of those barrels saved it's me
You're soooo behind the schedule. That was the anti-EV talking point 5 years ago. You were supposed to move to 'but did they factor in the battery production??' (which they do) and now use one of 'but is the grid ready for so many EV?' or 'there are no EVs below $30.000'!!. You're welcome.
Is it still a meme if it's scientifically accurate?
Each org is different. There are organizations doing agile in a shit way, there are organization that are shit because they don't do agile and there are some that do OK because they take out of agile just what they need. In my first job they would write all the requirements up front, agree the price, sign a contract and then discover crucial functionality was missing. So they could either deliver useless product and piss off the client or do some extra work for free. It was shit. In my next company everything was nicely divided into sprints but the process was so overgrown working there was super boring and most project didn't even finish, they just got cancelled somewhere in the middle. My current company mostly lets teams organize themselves and is using agile to monitor progress and react if something gets delayed. It's mostly fine. Agile is not the problem and it's not a universal fix. You simply have to be smart about which or it to use and how.
LLMs don't sort or organize data. Machine learning can do it but LLMs specifically only generate text. I think that's the whole point. People confuse machine learning with LLMs. Machine learning can do amazing things in many industries. Companies creating dedicated products using machine learning can make money. LLMs themselves can do very little and huge valuations of companies like OpenAI don't make much sense.
The thing is, the protections writers won only protected them when working WITH AI. I.e. companies can't hire unionized writers and pay them less because they are using AI. If they can skip the writers all together all those protections go out the window.
I'm not saying this will happen soon or at all. I'm just saying that if the models become capable or generating screen ready material the protections writers won won't matter anymore.
II thin it's actually possible. Normally the argument against is that "AI can't be creative" but when was the last time Hollywood made a creative movie? "Write a script for Spiderman movie. Include origin story. Spiderman will fight Green Goblin. Again.".
Yes, people being dumb is the real source of all issues.
Well, I guess EU would simply come up with a plan for the automation that will not leave people without any protection. No idea what it would look like but they could for example come up with some legal definition of AI worker, establish mandatory staffing levels (for example 50% of employees must be human until 2040), tax 'salaries' of AI workers and use this revenue to retrain the workforce. We would still end up with automated jobs but it would happen in an organize manner.
What about 2 3 4 5 6 7?