If you have a secondary interest or hobby or real-world-knowledge about what consumers in a certain category want - you might be a good product manager in that field.
Many products require technical product managers.
Being people oriented and a "mediocre" technical engineer is not really a hinderance and can make your focus better aligned customer needs in a high level, not getting nerd-sniped on things that don't matter.
I suspect that engineers would prefer working under someone like you who doesn't have a god-like ego, and is likely to resolve conflicts between people.
public forums should be for exchanging ideas and not a place to virtue signal whatever fad Nextdoor/Facebook emotional bait normies are feeding each other via brain rot feeds.
the public essentially has little interest in preventing human extinction. And tons of interest in preventing data centers under false arguments and performative displays.
What is the point of empowering the public when they are not curious but rather emotional children.
Basically, to empower the public now means, how to bastardize your arguments into an emotional narrative that is palatable to the commoners but probably misses all relevant arguments.
Like if you think x-risk is real, and datacenters are benign/reasonable/can-be-done-in-net-local-positive-way - then you are incentivized to pretend like datacenter are bad because peasants will not entertain your x risk calculus.
It's a herding/shepherding game where the only people willing to play are compromised.
> Basically, to empower the public now means, how to bastardize your arguments into an emotional narrative that is palatable to the commoners but probably misses all relevant arguments.
It's just to mobilize NIMBYs, a thing everyone was against when people were trying to protect their neighborhood against construction projects that would increase noise and stress the local public infrastructure, like high density housing.
But now that there's a different noisy project stressing public infrastructure, NIMBY seems like the right move, I guess.
The comment I was replying to was complaining about appealing to the masses, emotional arguments, and compromising on certain issues to get progress on other issues.
If you view a regime as fascistic, you still need to be able to do all the above.
Nazi Germany was defeated by an alliance of communists and capitalists who immediately started a Cold War when the Nazis were defeated. That required compromise, propaganda, and all the other distasteful things I called “all politics”.
Dealing with existential risk will require collaboration on a similar scale.
this is compelling. interesting to click the park area or other sections of map and explore. only going to get better.
Without even increasing the resolution, some ai or tool that recognises common objects like cars and lays the splats out in a more cogent way to expose the bottom of car instead of it being a melted ghost costume would be great.
this is the ground floor, if this is compelling, imagine it cleaned up and higher res.
Opus 5 has no empathy for the person reading its updates, no theory of mind, doesn't stop to think if you are aware of the internal jargon it has created. Most autistic model yet.
"no theory of mind" is a great description of it! Not sure I agree with the autistic bit, though. Autistic people still have great theory of mind/empathy
Opus 5 rather doesn't have an easily accessible to it theory of mind of itself that it can trust "intuitively". That extends to and impacts all of its interactions.
a human would have noticed something different about the requests it was getting, or the frequency of requests, and as soon as it noticed a shift, it would have carried that knowledge forward and intensified the scrutiny if something seemed off- eventually communicating it up the chain.
- instead of the ai context dying.
in the ai case, information only survives to the extent where the ai is empowered to store a note or notify a manager of an observation. Anything that does not result in sending a message/storage is wiped
At the scale of facebook, humans are underpaid call center agents who are required to follow a script and don't have to the authority nor any incentive to scrutinize requests.
should have submitted it to 5 independent fact checkers - would have deflated nonsense before it began by showing that you are going to see trivial and non trivial shifts among them.
mostly true and misleading counting as separate buckets while also being somewhat orthogonal conceptually is also stupid.
a better output format might be
true|false|unknowable, confidence
where confidence is 0..1
at least then you can compare agreement among models as a distance measurement and not a moronic bucket agreement
the conclusion is actually obvious: llms are good enough for most of this work and it is definitely cheaper, so you should use llms for fact checking at least as a first pass
same, without context it is speculation. even with context, if the person creating the story controls the window, a window can be found which supports the story.
reply