If my experience with it at work is anything to go by, no. Increasing amounts of my time are spent fixing the sloppy output of coworkers who use AI. Far from being "left behind" I've become one of the few people who is actually able to solve complicated problems.

I don't think my colleagues are going to be replaced by ai. I think they are going to continue to use llms to generate "output" that needs someone like me to constantly fix until that becomes too expensive. At which point they will go back to doing their work the way they used to.

These llms are impressive word guessing machines, but the are nowhere near as capable as their companies say they are.

This is not that funny but I was amused watching it happen. One time I was at the DMV in a college town and a kid was at the counter trying to get his license renewed. From what I could gather he had it revoked because he was underage and had a DUI. Lady at the counter bounced the kid and a few minutes later, the kid came back in with his father and they were apparently from a rich family. Or at least rich by Ohio standards. When the lady at the counter explained that he could not have his license renewed because he had a court order against him, the father started in on the "Do you know who I am? I will buy this whole town!" routine, but the DMV lady was not having any of it. Both the kid and the father insisted that the judge did not have any right to take his license away from him and that it would be over turned on appeal so the DMV lady had to give him his license, because dad would make sure she got fired if he didn't. But the DMV lady would not relent and issue a license. The father and kid were getting pretty animated, so finally the lady picked up the phone and said something to the effect of "Your kid lied on this form and is probably violating his probation, we can call the court right now and see what your judge thinks about that." Which at that point caused them to sheepishly leave. When I got to the counter she told me that was not the first time in her career someone tried to do that to her.

If they had actually discovered a cause of autism, or even substantially advanced research in that area they would have announced it right away, rather than engaging in this hype cycle bs like they are trying to defraud a venture capitalist.

Unhelpful Linux User Archetypes:

The Configurator: All problems are configuration problems. The fact that a user has a problem means they configured their machine incorrectly. All help requests are an opportunity to lecture others about configuration files.

The lumberjack: Insists on logs no matter how simple or basic the question. "How do I get the working directory in the terminal?" -Sorry, I can't help you unless you post your log. "What does the -r flag do?" -You need to post a log for me to answer that question. "Is there a way to make this service start at boot?" -We have no way of knowing unless you post your log. When a user posts their log, the lumberjack's work is done. No need to reply to the thread any further.

The Anacdata Troubleshooter: Failed to develop a theory of mind during childhood. Thinks their machine is representative of all machines. If they don't have an issue, the user is lying about the issue.

The Jargon Master: Uses as much jargon as possible in forum posts. If a user doesn't know each and every term, that's on them. If you did not commit to mastering every aspect of a piece of software before asking for help, were you even trying to solve the problem?

The Hobby Horse Jockey: All problems are caused by whatever thing the contributor does not like. Graphics driver issue? Snaps. Computer won't post? Obviously, Snaps. Machine getting too hot? Snaps. Command 'flatpack' not found? Oh you better believe snaps did that.

The Pedantfile: Gets mad because everyone asks their questions the wrong way. Writes a message letting the user know they asked their question wrong. Message usually appears within a minute or two of someone providing a solution to the user.

That is really just a map of poverty.

I just want to share my thought process here in the vain hope that someone else might see the light of reading past the headline.

This is what went through my head as I was reading:

1. 10 times more? That seems really implausible. Where did they get the figure from?
2. Ok so the subtitle is about capitalism. That seems really tendentious. That does not really inspire a lot of confidence.
3. The first figure is a bar "chart" that presents two numbers, about 3600 serial killers from the US and about 196 from England. Where did those numbers come from?
4. Scrolling down, the first link is to a report from the "Serial Killer information center" which gives the overall figure from the US as 3204, not 3600. So where did they get the 3600 number from?

Immediately, several problems jump out at the use of this database for the conclusions the substack draws.

1. First, the definition of serial killer given in the report is "The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events." That is pretty broad, and would include things like a family murder (a man kills his wife, then goes to their kid's school and kill their kid before committing suicide.), or murder for instrumental reasons (e.g. robbery). That is not usually what people think of when they think of serial killers.

2. Second the number of killers in the report shoots up dramatically in 1960. That coupled with the fact that the sources for the data are a hodge-podge of administrative records and reporting would make me very cautious about the database. This is what the webstite the report comes from says:

The database was created using information collected by Radford University students from a variety of sources including prison records, court transcripts, media sources, true crime books, and the Internet. Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information.

So, my guess is that the data are mostly from reporting. If that is true then the data are going to be biased towards "serial killers" that show up in news events.

1. So the data sources are not clear, we don't know the distribution of legal records to news, we don't know how records are initially identified. What is clear is that the database is not a sample of news or administrative records about violent crime. For example, the data were not collected by randomly sampling a set of judicial systems across countries then estimating counts of convictions where the offender fit the definition of "serial killer." Rather, the data (according to a slide show on the website) "began with student serial killer timelines." That same slide deck reports that one of the goals of the database is to provide accurate information for a forensic psychology course. That purpose suggests a focus on case studies rather than national estimates.

2. Since those students, along with the course and school, are in the US and since the data were collected in an ad-hoc manner relying in part (I suspect heavily) on news reporting, it is a safe bet that the reason the database has so many more US killers in it is because the folks who compiled it focused on collecting data from the US.

To wit: Why does the US have so many more serial killers? Because we spent more time measuring serial killers in the US.

1. The rest of the substack article drifts away from discussion of serial killers and more towards homicides in general. Some of it is less objectionable. Some of it is contradictory and obviously wrong for example:

The United States criminalizes poverty in ways that peer nations do not. Sex work is illegal across most of the country.

Sex work is actually illegal in many countries.

Among peer nations, the U.S. is an outlier on inequality by essentially the same margin it is an outlier on serial killing.

What? What does that even mean? How are they getting that figure?

Overall, I don't think this is particularly credible. I hope now, that you too will be at least skeptical of the arguments put forth here.

Former CEO of the river poisoning company says there is no way to meet our river poison reduction goals, so we might as well build bigger river poisoning machines because they might help us figure out how to stop poisoning the river. /s

I feel like there was a time when the tech folks in silicon valley had a lot of credibility, and we are now living in a period where most of the world sees them as a joke but that fact has not yet entered into the culture of silicon valley.

(1) Network effects. People want to use social media that everyone else is using. Once a site achieves a critical mass of users it becomes the obvious choice to join. It also becomes difficult to leave because if you have built up a personal network on most sites, you can’t take it with you.

(2) Convenience. Most sites don’t require a lot of effort to use. In the past few years this one has surprised me a bit. The level of effort most people are willing to put in to trying a new site is basically 0. Using something like lemmy requires you to read a few paragraphs and make a decision about a home instance. That is too much effort for a lot of people.

AI doomsday marketing wank has the same vibe as preteens at a sleepover getting spooked by a ouija board.

I’ve noticed more and more people taking sooo much stuff with them on board too. Like they think they are pioneers and need a covered wagons worth of provisions to weather the trip from ATL to LAX.

I suppose some of that can be blamed on the airlines for steep baggage fees but holy crap do people try and take way too much junk with them everywhere they go. So they all take 10 min to unpack.

What even is this article? "People on the internet, who don't know anything about how the military works are worried something that definitely won't happen might happen."

Why is this news?

This does not extend to the Judicial branch. It only applies to the Executive branch. You can read the EO yourself to see that fact.

This is bad because it is trying to exert control over independent agencies, and pretty stupid because there is something like 5000 final rules and proposed rules in the Federal Register last year, so if this were seriously implemented, the AG and POTUS would just sit in teams meetings for the rest of their terms while potential rules get discussed.

This is bad because it undermines the independence of federal agencies, it does not actually impact the Judicial system however.

I am writing this with the assumption that you are tacitly asking about US politics because of the moment in history. What I have to say will make people mad, but here goes:

A lot of the people on this webzone are what Eitan Hersh called "political hobbyists". These are people who do not really take political action in their daily life despite voting or occasionally attending a rally. They may be well informed about politics, but being well-informed in itself is not really effective at changing politics. You can get on your phone and "rub the glass" to complain about politics, or to find people who agree with you. But outrage on social media won't change anything, and if rubbing the glass and occasionally voting is all you do, then you are a political hobbyist.

Political hobbyism mostly functions as a consumerist approach to political engagement. A political hobbyist will passively receive news and information about politics, but will never really try to change anything, because to them engaging in a news feed is all they really do. That consumerism is painfully apparent here when, for example, posters denounce a Democratic candidate as being "not exciting" or someone they are "not passionate about" as if the candidate was the newest model in a brand of laptops that failed to zazzle in Q3. We see signs of political hobbyism again when political parties are treated as entities that are somehow completely separate from the public. For example when a lemmy user denounces the Democratic party for not doing what they want. "The Democrats need to do X!" Why are you complaining about that on the internet? You know the DNC isn't reading these threads right?

If you really wanted to influence the Democratic party (which I think is the best bet for resisting fascism right now) why aren't you lobbying the party? Why aren't you mobilizing voter bases? Why aren't you building political power in your local community so you can influence larger political organizations? Because its hard, because you don't know where to start, because you are busy? Ok, but fascism is coming, and you are too busy to do anything about it. Or too overwhelmed to even try?

The truth is, if you wanted your ideas (and I am including here opposition to fascism as an idea) to influence policy, or what candidates gain traction in nomination races, then you should have been working on that LOOOOONNNNNG before the national candidate was nominated. Treating the Democratic party as a vendor that offers political products is a losing strategy for gaining influence. There will be an endless parade of glass rubbers ready to denounce the various political parties, but by and large, they didn't do anything to gain influence with those parties. Their denouncements are ignored, they are irrelevant. My advice is to ignore the glass-rubbers. Identify one or two local issues in your physical area and try to improve them. What you should do is find a little slice of America (or your own country if you are not American) and try to make it better. Use those efforts to build up influence at higher levels. My goal here was to convince you not to listen to the glass rubbers. But my advice for resisting fascism is: Try to build political networks, try to mobilize local voters in local issue elections. Doing this will make your network an invaluable asset to larger (state and national) organizations. If you have a network of voters, of issue conscious citizens, or donors, larger organizations are going to want to leverage that network when it comes time for lager races. That gives you leverage. That gives you power. The glass-rubbers are going to tell you that is impossible. Its not. People do it all the time. The book I cited has examples of people doing it. Fascist conservative groups do it all the time. So why not you?

I will admit, this is hard. When I first read Hersh's book I was offended, because when he was describing political hobbyists, he was describing me. But it did give me some motivation to think about politics from the perspective of power. And set me down the road of trying to do all things I wrote about here. It is early days for me yet, and I have only seen limited success. My work complicates things. I am busy, and often overwhelmed. But fascism is coming.

PhD Level expertise:

Tennessee and Elevenessee

It’s only a misdemeanor because the injuries sustained were only categorized as boo-boos. If they had been ouchies, we would be looking at felony charges.

A lot of the lyrics to tool songs focus on transcendental, spiritual, or psychedelic experiences. They also feature complicated compositions and a high degree of technical skill. As a consequence, some folks that have a "I'm on a higher plane of existence compared to you sheeple" attitude are attracted to the band. Which I think is what the meme is poking fun of.

There is some truth to it I suppose. When pusicfer (whose lead is the singer from tool) released Apocalyptical during the pandemic (a song that was clearly criticizing the stupidity of covid deniers/misinformation consumers) a lot of tool fans got upset because the song was not consistent with their conspiratorial world-view

Peterson retreats to a politically convenient solipsism whenever challenged on anything. He is not a serious person.

I went to one for a candidate for the House district I lived in a few election cycles ago, It was mostly stump speeches and other "rah rah we're gonna win!" style pontificating. But one thing I did not expect and I actually found interesting was the house candidate spent a lot of time introducing other local politicians that were in down ballot races in the district. City council seats, education board seats etc. That turned out to be really useful, because it meant I got to meet/ hear from candidates who I either had no idea existed or who were just a name of a flyer before then. I suppose that experience may not transfer to a national candidate rally though.