EatATaco

Thanks for the response. But on this:

The idea is that institutional/wealthy investors are savvy enough to figure that out on their own.

Do what on their own? I don't quite follow what you are alluding to here.

Public means it's open to anyone, right? Not just institutional investors?

she even puts silverware on the top rack instead of in that little basket

😲 Let me go tell my wife how much I love her and appreciate her dishwasher loading skills. lol

But yeah, it's the same thing with my wife, she's very smart, she is just incapable of using any reason when putting stuff in the dishwasher. Although at least she puts the silverware in the basket. Dear god.

Trash she's fine with. But her other thing is also unloading the dishwasher. She gets things in the right cabinet/drawer, but they just get shoved in. It's the same thing with the refrigerator. She opens the door, finds the biggest space, and puts whatever is in her hand right in the middle of that space. And the complains there is no room in the fridge.

I was originally a chip designer. Then I shifted into embedded development. Now I'm mainly a C# guy.

But when I shifted into embedded development, I also shifted into doing power engineering. I grabbed a couple of books on the topic at hand, taught myself a lot, and designed the electronics to meet the need. We sold the product to city utilities.

I remember one time I was in a room with probably 10 engineers from one of the utilities. After having described the product to them, and went through a lot of our settings and stuff, I was explaining the difference between two of algorithms we put in (because different utilities use different algorithms, and I just wanted one device that could do both). At some point I was like "which of the two algorithms do you use?" and one responded "well, which do you recommend?" So I talked about why I thought one was better than the other.

They all started looking at each other and nodding and saying "Yeah, that's the one were going to use." I realize I could have said anything at that point and they would have agreed. They thought I was expert. And that was my "last two frames" of this comic moment.

Now as a senior dev, I've seen enough shit to realize that most people have no idea what is going on, and are flying by the seat of their pants. So I figure my ignorance is a little less than theirs, and that gives me a lot of confidence, but I also realize that I can learn a lot from most people.

this can’t be the first time you’ve encountered a contradiction in the text of your holy book

lol. I'm not a Christian. You're just exposing your lack of critical thinking by thinking that, because I don't agree with you, I must be the exact opposite. My child, the world is not black and white.

You're projecting your struggle with cognitive dissonance onto me, make no mistake about it.

You can certainly kindly let them know that this isn’t really gonna work and explain why (and let them know you appreciate the effort), but the rest of it is way overkill and could easily be seen as patronizing, imo.

If the goal is to get them to load it correctly, the way the top level poster describe is far more likely to be successful than this. Once someone feels attacked, and telling them 'you're doing it wrong' is most likely to be received as an attack, they go into a defensive mode and will become mostly unreceptive to any further suggestions from you because they will be too busy trying to defend themselves.

Dear god, no. I could have taken this exact picture and titled it "My 40 year old wife. Should I get a divorce?"

She needs mandatory me training so just in case she ends up living with me (extremely unlikely lol) or someone equally as anal about this (reasonably possible) she doesn't "force" them to reorder the dishwasher while grumbling under their breath.

At least the other poster offered up what is effectively a completely made up verse.

the first directive is meant to be a general note for their future work and not to be applied to the second directive

This is the root question, which you just gloss over. Why? It's a general note, why should one assume it doesn't apply? You seem to be saying "it applies except when it doesn't." It would seem to be that the rational thing to do would be to assume that the general note applies unless you're explicitly told otherwise, or there is some good reason to believe this wasn't the intent.

Also, fyi, the request was for German soldiers, not nazis.

And don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it should not generate black German soldiers from 1939 without being explicitly told to do so. But I think this is a problem with it's directives rather than evidence that it's not thinking.

I can use my own implicit knowledge about Nazis to understand that my boss doesn’t want me to draw racially diverse Nazis.

I don't even know how "implicit knowledge" applies here, but it sounds like you're really just assuming that the previous order no longer applies. One could also assume that it still applies. I think the latter is actually the more reasonable assumption, assuming this all happens ins vacuum.

I just know that it I told one of my reports to add more diversity, and then they added diversity to pictures of nazis, but that's not what I wanted, then I would take that as my fault, not accuse them of not thinking.

Should have been specific. I meant the point that it sometimes does stupid shit in attempts to be inclusive.

However, if you tell someone "hey I want you to make racially diverse pictures. Don't just draw white people all the time" and then you later come back and ask them to "draw a German soldier from 1943." Can you really accuse them of not thinking if they draw racially diverse soldiers?

This gets the question...how do we think? Are we not just language (and other inputs as well) processors? I'm not sure the answer is "no."

I also listened to an interesting podcast, I believe it was this American life or some other npr one, about whether ai has intelligence. To avoid the just "compressed knowledge" they came up with questions that the ai almost certainly would not have found in the web. Early ai models were clearly just predicting the next word, and the example was asking it to stack a list of objects. And it just said to stack them one on top of another, in a way that would no way be stable.

However when they asked a new model to do the same, with the stipulation that it explain it's reasoning, it stacked the objects in a way that would likely be stable. Even noting that the nail on top should be placed on the head so it doesn't roll around, and laying eggs down in a grid between a book and a plank of wood so they wouldn't roll out.

Another experiment they did was take a language model and asked it to use some obscure programming language to draw a picture of a unicorn. Now this is a language model, not trained on any images.

And you know what it did? It produced a picture of a unicorn. Just in rough shapes, but even when they moved the horn and flipped it around, it was able to put it back. Without even ever seeing a unicorn, or anything even, it was able to draw a picture of one.

I don't think the answer is as simple and clear as you want it to be. And the fact that it "fucked up" on a vague prompt doesn't really prove anything. Even humans do stupid shit like this if they learn something incorrectly.