I assume this is all some elaborate joke based on an alternate universe, since in our reality, the golden age of safe aviation and good engineering on the planes corresponded to strong safety regulations, and deregulation is exactly what cleared the way for Boeing management to cut corners in the exact negligent-homicidal way they are doing and have done. I can’t find the punch line though, can you help me?
mozz
joined 10 months ago
There are people in the world right now who really do wake up every day to hell on earth, like you or I can't imagine
And people who have no ability at all (at least right now) to change things
I'm not saying things are easy for you or sit in judgement or anything like that. I hope things get better and I really do. But at the same time if you're on Lemmy, you are not either one of those.
30,000 unrelated people had their data handed over to the government
It doesn't say it happened. It said Google received a court order. People challenge court orders sometimes, there's just a process you have to go through to do it.
The whole article is honestly just weird. E.g. "Privacy experts from multiple civil rights groups told Forbes they think the orders are unconstitutional because they threaten to turn innocent YouTube viewers into criminal suspects." That is... that's not what "unconstitutional" means at all. Sometimes cops will question innocent people or knock on doors when they're investigating crimes. If they're doing it without court oversight, that's dangerous. If "crimes" include things that aren't actually crimes, that's dangerous. If "knocking on doors" includes more than just actually asking questions to investigate, that's dangerous. But I'm a little doubtful that they showed up at anyone's door just because that person watched a YouTube video and started asking them questions related or unrelated to the specific crime they were investigating.
The article's written in a way where you genuinely can't tell some important details -- they don't say whether the video was public or unlisted, they don't say whether the cops were the ones that uploaded it, there are important things like that that they don't make clear. But the idea that the constitution says the cops can't gather data under any circumstances to investigate a crime seems like just a knee-jerk "cops bad" reaction.
I don't even necessarily disagree with your broader point. If the cops took a publicly-listed YouTube video and asked a court for the identities of 30,000 people who happened to watch it, and then the court agreed, and then Google gave them the data instead of pushing back legally (which the article claims they do sometimes), then sure, that's wrong. But literally every one of those elements is unclear from the article whether it happened.
there's nothing stopping cops from getting all of our data
At the end of the article is an instance where the cops went to the court for a "geofencing" warrant and the court threw out their request because it was too broad. That's the point of oversight and why having to get a warrant is an important step.
Like I say I'm honestly not completely disagreeing with you here. I definitely think too much data gets harvested about what every person does online and the cops are too freely able to access it with too little oversight. Depending on the details, maybe that's what happened here, or maybe it was legit. I'm just saying I'm don't agree with the assertion that it's always wrong.
Sounds like it wasn't really illegal (just a mapping / drone thing), as well as the behavior they were looking into wasn't something that was for-certain illegal (just trading cash for crypto, which is I guess "illegal adjacent" but not in itself illegal). IDK. The story as it was told was a little confusing / didn't completely make sense to me on the face of it as the complete story.
Well... the part they quoted is a little misleading.
The two situations they talked about at least on the face of it were:
- An undercover agent was in contact with someone, and sent them a link to something in the expectation they'd click it and then that undercover agent could track down what was the IP/identity of the person who clicked the link. Pretty standard stuff. The only weird part is that it was a stock Youtube link and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after (and that for whatever reason there were 30,000 people who watched the video and they asked for the info about all 30,000).
- Law enforcement got a bomb threat, then they learned that there had been a livestream of them while they were looking for the bomb. That doesn't automatically mean anything about the person who was livestreaming (maybe they just saw something exciting happening?), but wanting to talk with that person makes 100% sense to me.
So, to me both of those seem pretty reasonable. But of course the on-the-face-of-it explanation for #1 doesn't completely make sense for a couple of different reasons. But I wouldn't automatically class either of these as abuse by law enforcement without knowing more.
Does it work out okay with 12 cores purely on CPU? About how fast is the interaction?
I played around a little with Ollama and gpt4all but it seemed to me like it wasn't fast enough to be useful on pure CPU, but if I could just throw cores at it then I might revisit the issue.
Sounds about right.
Tree work is dangerous, be careful with yourself. There's a tiny, tiny voice that warns you when you're about to do something dumb. It only sounds for a second, small and faint, and then it disappears. Learn to seize and amplify it, come to a complete stop and listen, and then adjust what you're doing, instead of continuing on "it'll probably be fine."
People should only join the field if they're passionate about or at least enjoy it otherwise they will burn out fast. With that said, I don't think the field as a whole should be written off by those who enjoy the work
This part, I 1,000% agree with. I was actually in school for a CS degree because I had love for it, before I realized that a lot of people were in it because it was money, and it really surprised and confused me. Like buddy you're gonna have a better life if you go and find your thing that you have love for and do that instead.
think we just have different views on where AI is headed and what it is capable of. Neither job is going to be replaced any time soon by AI IMO, but I'm pretty certain a UPS driver will be replaced much sooner as it's a fundamentally simpler problem to solve.
Experts in the field don't agree with you. As of now, it's supposed to be easy white-collar mental work is the very first thing on the chopping block (accounting, paralegal, sort of simple stuff where you just have to have the right domain knowledge and not screw it up). That's not in the cards for AI currently but it's clearly on the horizon with no real earthshattering breakthroughs required. But pure-mental work that takes serious understanding and planning, something like software dev is next after that. It's far, far outside the capabilities of current AI programs yes. But I think depending on your multi decade career trajectory on nothing really changing in terms of new breakthroughs is not a real no-brainer if the priority is money and a comfortable life.
Stuff that involves interacting in the real world -- handling a vehicle that can kill people, there's no unit tests or way for someone to go in after the fact and fix it, you have to get off the truck and interact with an unpredictable environment with human rules that can't be broken down logically, or you have to physically put up framing or wiring or etc -- is actually supposed to be the last to go, after anything that's purely mental. I think it's hard to predict, as you said, but that theory makes sense to me.
I agree somewhat with your concern over the uncertainty of the world, but I figure no one really knows where we're headed so I might as well do what I love and make as much money as possible in the meantime.
This actually makes total sense to me. If you would be programming if it made $38k a year, because it is your art, then fuckin sounds great. There were a lot of people who did that way back in the day, before the whole money-function came into it, and they were content and they created a lot of the solid foundations for the computing world we have today (that will likely be around for a lot longer than Tailwind or Typescript will.)
I want solid data to back up your bull
I am mostly talking about the future. My feeling is that climate change is going to fuck up the world in a big way, and AI is going to fuck up pure-mental-computational labor as a reliable meal ticket in a big way. Neither of those are coming in the next year or two, but they're also not like 50 years from now either. You may feel differently but that is my prediction.
As of right now, the data is:
Computer programmer Austin TX, $69k - $123k I picked those more or less at random. I'm aware that senior software engineers may make more depending on area or depending on advancing into a lead role. On the other hand, many other college-dependent fields probably make less than software engineers. Tradies may make more by opening their own company. It's hard to compare. But more my point was that going into someone's house and fixing their wires is likely to remain a lot more viable than programming a web site or doing admin for a doctor's office, in the long term, starting from today and planning for what you'll be doing to have a good life in 2064.
I don't need to hangout by fucking farms. I can got to the store thank you, like a normal person. Have fun cosplaying as a hippie on some hobby farm.
I hope you are right and stores are still operating and there is still food enough for everybody and finances are the main concern. I do not think that is going to be accurate 20-30 years from now though. Again that's more where I'm coming from with this, as opposed to talking about what would have been a good plan 20 years ago and landing in late adulthood right now and thinking through your retirement going forward.
Agree agree
It used to be that working was working, and it prepared you for making a living, and education was education, and it prepared you for picking your head up above the melee and seeing what was coming and what needed to happen and adjusting (and adjusting your society) accordingly. That system worked well.
Then we entered into a little closed feedback loop of "degrees make money" -> "holy shit, I want a degree" -> "we need people to give all these thirsty people degrees" -> "well we gotta make it easier to get one then" -> "open more schools" -> "pump em in pump em out get those stacks, yay tuition" -> "more tuition" -> "student loans" -> "hey now we can REALLY charge tuition" -> "argh this degree doesn't even help me with my job which was the purpose" -> "fuck these loans are six figures and I still don't have a job" -> SYSTEM ERROR REDO FROM START
At this point, aside from some outliers which still attempt to provide a good education, the majority of undergrad programs are as far as I can tell just like a big young adult day-care program and a fairly ineffective job-training center. The educational purpose is still there depending on the professor but the wider system only cares about it every now and then, by accident.
System is fucked
It is bothersome, because actual education is actually really important. Especially in the US we really need it right now.
Yeah. Like a lot of technological shifts, it's not so much that the AI will put everyone who does mental work out of a job. It's more that that people who can interface well with the AI and operate it, will put out of a job the people who are competing directly with the AI itself.
That's only in the medium term though. In the long term the shifts from AI and climate change and God knows what else are so seismic that all bets are off IMO.
It’s those damn lazy bolts, I set up a perfect environment for them and none of them stepped up and held the door closed, no one wants to work anymore, see this is why I hate immigrants and young people