Medicine is as effective as exercise for depression?

This is how sociopaths think. They ask questions like "Would this benefit me?" and "Am I big enough to get away with it?"

Thoughts like "is it ethical?" or "does it harm others?" or even "is it illegal?" Don't even enter their minds.

They just make up their own rules. "You cannot bot-around through our site, but we can and will bot-around through yours, and we can and will advertise your stuff on our site (incorrectly) sending you problems and expecting you to be grateful for that, and if you don't like it you can opt out after the damage is done." The article doesn't say how one opts-out. I wonder how easy (and free) that process is...

What you are saying about salt is simply not true.

Not at all!

In the case of saturated fats, there is ongoing debate with evidence both ways. I am not going to bother to cite any of it because it clearly won't make a difference. Wherever you are getting your health information from, it clearly isn't reputable studies.

You really should get a proper education on the relevant facts before forming opinions on such important topics, and especially before you go trying to convince others that you know what you are talking about.

I agree with you. This article is saying exactly what employers want to hear, in a very matter-of-fact and highly enthusiastic way. "Oh sure, one guy does the work of 10 now. It's totally easy and anyone can do it. Just buy my product!" It's not, however, providing any kind of objective metrics that this is even true, nor indicator that this productivity level applies to all project types, nor whether the code stays maintainable in the long term.

The article states that opting for this pricier bot and pipeline solves the biggest problem of AI-assisted development: the need for humans to correct the bot's mistake. I don't believe for a nanosecond they they have solved this problem just by throwing more bots into the mix.

When there's proof, that's when I will believe it. For now, what we have here looks a lot more like grift.

Based on how this thread went, it appears the answer is "no, the democrats aren't ready to have an honest conversation. All they want to do is spew hatred and project their own bigotry."

Sad.

I wish I could say "I never use Microsoft Office for anything, it's all just LibreOffice!"

But, unfortunately, I have a job. My employer (like nearly all employers) requires the use of "Microsoft 365 Copilot App".

I found a few job listings that are Linux-focused....they paid significantly less than what I am making.

So, I guess, I have been bribed into using this garbage. That's the bottom line then: I hate Microsoft products so much they literally have to pay me to use them.

Power also corrupts. So in those rare cases where virtuous people wind up with any amount of power at all, they do not remain virtuous for very long.

But what you said is still true: the already evil (or, as they prefer to think of it, already enlightened) are the ones who most aggressively seek positions of power (and who have the most advantages for attaining it, since they have no problems playing dirty to win).

You are correct. The people quoted in this summary seem to believe that hallucinations are a solvable problem for AI, and that they solved it, it just took a lot longer than expected.

Nope, they didn't solve it. Their AI will still hallucinate, and can still be jailbroken too. Their optimism suggests a severe lack of due diligence, despite the extended period they have worked on this. I am imagining some egos are involved that simply cannot admit to failure, especially given what they have spent, but that is going to make it all the more embarrassing (and harmful) when the hallucinations cause real world harm and they take it offline at that time.

On the other hand, maybe they actually DID make an AI chatbot that never hallucinates! What an amazing leap forward for AI tech! This is really going to revolutionize the industry! (But does anyone at all actually believe this? I sure don't.)

If our culture experiences any shift involving a lowering of working hours without a lowering of salaries, AI will have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing at all, even if the promises of enhanced worker productivity are true.

The one and only thing that would result in fewer working hours would be the application of significant political and cultural pressure on the part of the workers. All AI will do, assuming productivity gains are actually realized, is allow employers to reduce staff, since they can now get the same amount of work done by fewer people.

If technology-based productivity gains were going to reduce the amount of hours that most people worked, that would have happened long, long ago. AI is not some sort of breakthrough tech that is enabling something that wasn't possible before (as the article spins it). If it even delivers at all, its just another tiny step in a long journey of labor-need reduction that has resulted in nothing but the continual shrinking of the middle class and depression of worker wages since this country was founded.

Getting more for less will require legislation, and that's that.

I suspect that the team was given impossible goals to hit. Probably aggressive deadlines too. The same story everywhere.

I am not saying that makes it ok to cheat. I am just saying that problems like this start at the top, so being "really upset and losing confidence" is no evidence that leadership stands blameless for the team's failure.

So the observation here is that this trend of using AI instead of entry level people will, eventually, leave the job market empty of mid-level people, since nobody got the real-world experience that they need to become mid-level people.

Even if true, it still doesn't make sense for any individual business to hire and pay entry level people that they no longer need. If they do this, they are basically running a charity at that point, and likely violating their fiduciary duties. Each individual business needs to cut costs in whatever ways make sense for the health of the business. The problem of not being able to find the people they need isn't actually a problem until later.

So, even if every single business owner in the world reads these warnings and nods in agreement with them, they still have no incentive to hire entry level people. That would just increase their costs while allowing their competitors to keep their costs low. It wouldn't be rational for them to hire these people they don't need.

The most likely way this plays out (assuming it is actually true) is: when the day comes that mid-level people are needed but none are available, entry-level people will be hired instead, right into mid-level roles. Also, senior level people will be retained longer, paid more, possibly even invited out of retirement, to train and coach these entry-level people who are needed in mid-level roles.

There you go, problem solved. It might be a bit pricey when the day comes, quality and reliability might take a hit, but those costs will be felt industry-wide so all companies will at least be on equal footing.

At no point will warnings about a talent drought prevent any employers from using AI instead of humans as much as they possibly can.

I have studied the Bible in depth. I was referring to the Fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Bible, which is a popular one these days.

I am well aware that there are fringe groups (such as "universalists") who actually read the scriptures in original greek and point out fun facts like how Jesus never once even uttered the word "hell" and the entire doctrine is derived from some amazing mental gymnastics. Are you one of those? I certainly hope so, for you sanity's sake.

The Bible is an interesting source of information for historians, cultural historians, anthropologists, psychologists, mythologists, and even philosophers. So long as it is remembered that every word in it was put to paper by fallible human hands, of humans who lived in many different time periods and had many different motivations and didn't all agree with each other, then I don't have any more of a problem with it than I would with any other ancient text.

The moment you believe that a magical man in the sky used divine powers to ensure the accuracy of its very outlandish claims, that's where we part ways.

By that same token, having access to cheap foreign labor is a privilege, not a right. When abused, people can and will resort to collective bargaining techniques in order to protect their livelihoods, and that includes union formation and political lobbying to limit the availability of cheap foreign labor.

The door swings both ways.

It is true that religion is effective at motivating people to go murder until murdered. Though many people consider that to be more of a curse than a blessing, since war is quite horrible and is usually the result of simple greed and power-lust on the part of the nation's leaders. It's simply not the sort of thing that people should be willing to do under most circumstances. Incidentally, the "security of a nation" can be protected by a paid military force that includes atheists as well as members of any religion since their motivations stem from a desire to protect their home (and to earn a living) rather than religious indoctrination.

Morality and ethics, as it turns out, are not unique to Christianity nor even to religion. Though many religious people tend to think so since their only exposure to these things has been through their religion. Your assumption that non-Christian people "value nothing" just shows your own ignorance.

But the bottom line is very simple: Christianity is founded on unprovable and (quite frankly) strange claims about reality. This assertion that there exists a person with supernatural powers who watches and cares about every little thing we do, with reward and/or punishment in store for us, is just silly! The cultural experience of learning that "Santa Clause" is not real, and that people you trust have been lying to you about that all along, is supposed to imbue within us a healthy distrust for stories exactly like this one. Doubt is not some kind of sin; it is honest and necessary to protect ourselves from charlatans.

I thought it was ironic that the summary includes a quote calling Hanuman a "demon god." According to the Bible, the god of Christianity has no inhibitions about terrorizing people with natural disasters and disease, and eventually deciding to keep people alive forever just so he can keep torturing them with fire forever. Insofar as demon gods go, Jehova is the worst of them all!

Fortunately, there is absolutely no good reason to believe any of these stories.