Women: It's the other way around, the wage thieves had to sell the public on women leaving the home because they were too poor to live like their upbringing allowed. The main crime happened during Nixon and involved many power people working together before it became visible to those paying attention and from the security of the Nixon admin's "progress." (from employment and stability to investor above all else.) Edward Berney's techniques were used if not hiring him directly to engineer the public; he was after all the man who sold women on smoking tobacco cigars using freedom as the hook. Plus he made them white, smaller, cleaner looking and later with a gender specific with a new name: cigar-ette but the first name which WORKED at the time was "freedom stix" because women's rights was the big issue of the day (ah, the right for women to vote. Show you have the right to vote by smoking like the men do... but in a feminine way.) Furthermore, he invented celebrity product placement around the time - which was really more devious in that it's social modeling the new normal people thoughtlessly conform themselves into. Womens' Lib has been hijacked before; today, it's Republicans and all subgroups showing us just how few actually can think independently (extremely few can demonstrate/prove it. It takes so little for an idiot to excuse their stupid with a lie... "I meant to do that, I knew it was stupid, because reasons.")

Anyhow, it seems clear to me the hype aligned with an evolved version of his tactics which he was actively working on for 80 years. Including renaming the much maligned name for the profession he created: propaganda became Public Relations. Adopted by every big corporation and government since.

BTW, the Regan years ushered in massive outsourcing, productivity gains and job instability which reduced the job market. It was all part of a war on the middle class; not just robbing their wealth, but keeping them from fighting back by weakening and distracting them. Much the same as today, just further along so more people notice it... except the stupid. There is always going to be the left side of the bell curve who will kill themselves before realizing the truth... the freaks stand out because it's a tiny minority but when it's the bottom 30%, it hides in a large movement of stupid; which has the power to defend itself, unlike a few %. You've got to fight them back when it's difficult. Revolutions happen with only 20%. It's easy to pick on a few % but they have no direct influence (mega rich need suckers to indirectly get influence.)

Warren like most everybody, has to survey a broad area of perspectives to discover the truth; if it's even possible. RTFA, which is a lesson in overly narrow focus, is an extreme version but we all do the same thing, just not as obviously as the example. You also have only so much time and brainpower to put towards such theories which are usually not worth a lifetime of effort to try to get a definitive answer (especially if it takes generations and you kind of wasted all that effort then, no?)

"They just concluded that at some point this year, the equation ceased to give meaningful results because the predicted population shot toward infinity. That was their doomsday."

Earths population has clearly shAt towards doomsday instead.

20 years ago there was a big push to outsource to India; following IBM and others. What stopped it? Well you can't legally do much of anything to them. You can protect yourself legally if you import the workers and you can likely abuse them more too. I've seen corps in my state get burned by Indian firms who realized they did all the work and got little money; they didn't need their owners, just a US marketing dept. and compete against their exploiter... cheaper. Hell, during the housing collapse, some of the contractors turned around and bought their "owners" then laid off most those useless rent seekers.

Maybe they will realize they can make US workers relocate abroad for lower pay and still be able to sue them? (as long as they are contractors.)

Hey, you PAY for more rigor and then expect more. If you don't like it, then do another study. Actual science is testable and repeatable, 1st one can be shit, it's good science if it gets the ball rolling for rigorous peer review. Furthermore, some of these studies are student projects and that is ok too. I'm sure many students would be happy to get some attention, even if it had flaws pointed out. We severely lack peer review and repeat studies.

Today, solid flawless science is just a narrative for idiots to argue with and if they can't find some picky thing from their ignorance they'll just imagine lies unless they are lazy, in which case, it's just "fake news" and they move on without any more effort. Why put in any effort when half the population are fucking morons? Plus AI gets trained on all of it...

We have had human made "slop" for a long time now. Too many games and most are barely anything new for years already. Even AAA 1st person shooters which are like 1 new gun, an option for slightly different game mode, and a new different sequence of old movie plots... using an army of artists to add new graphics to the existing content library.

There are people who haven't even experienced Nintendo because they are worn out on junk rip offs with zero creativity. Which is good for industry because lacking taste means you will consume their shit unaware of what quality is. Like Disney did to Pixar etc.

Yes sort of. Back in the 1940s a mathematician did a useless paper after seeing some theory on how neurons might work in the brain, it described a mathematical way for this theory do be simulated. This was the the birth of the perceptron, something nobody could seriously work with because computers were not invented yet. It led to neuron networks and AI. Worthless academic busy work?

You don't know the impact. A bad worthless idea can inspire a great one and nobody even would know it's actual worth. Solving such things might prove useful. Sadly, solving them to show off ROBS attention, promotions, some fame?, and meeting publishing requirements... robs these from people progressing in their careers. It is true that some stuff goes unsolved because of a lack of interest for enough people to attempt it until somebody discovers a solution. The 3rd person who attempted may have solved it, but only 1 tried... That said, how many have the discipline to attempt already solved puzzles? ones that could take years?

Thanks... but... if you throw shit at a fan waiting for something... or how about a million monkeys typing on typewriters eventually producing something?

This is a higher level pattern recognizer; still a recognizer, with a huge amount more computer power. I'm sure it can crack passwords much faster with all that compute... but like passwords, cracking huge problems is a massive task. It can get lots of hints statistically from a lot of past data (human efforts, or human made passwords) so it's guesses can be more than just random; reducing the problem space.

Still, it can try a crazy amount of times and since it has fitness metrics for answers, it can narrow it's focus; it also can be stuck in localized minima (stuck in a rut) just like we do. When it's "smart" enough we can aim it at vague ideas of ways to attempt a problem and have it explore a million paths while a human might only need 100 but decades of time to do it. It's not better, it's fast enough to waste time on thoughtless pursuits and it will eventually have enough compute to beat a human. It's guess to success ratio is much worse than humans but does it matter if it's so fast it finds answers quicker?

We have simulators we use to explore questions faster than reality. Now we have a new more abstract reasoning simulator to explore faster. With more compute, it can get more random in it's millions of attempts and will stumble (perhaps, evolve is a better term since it adapts the heuristic) into new techniques. Because it's just a search, it has no real thought it'll try like a password cracker until it finds a match - it's just that it is way beyond a password cracking algorithm, but it's not different in what is going on. This whole thing reminds me of evolutionary search algorithms... we just couldn't apply those broadly or with so much compute. now we can.

It is possible that we will not need human input because as long as you can measure success, infinite monkeys will produce Shakespeare... more compute... and most importantly, better heuristics. It could be it finds heuristics better than what can be derived from human input; or maybe not, but it won't matter if you compensate with more compute. At some point human limitations will be reached and will it be able to continue without inspiration to steal from? Or will we have long stopped producing humans capable of such useful insight?? There is a reason chess was chosen as a challenge...until we found a way to best humans AFTER finding that specific heuristic.

It's not that safe using any browser. Just because bugs are listed doesn't mean they didn't exist unreported for decades. If you want to be safe, you have to seriously isolate the browser and question any data that comes out of it. Browsers update so much and are ridiculously complex it's silly to think a new one is actually more safe than an old one; so now we have way more bug fixes going on than before so maybe it is more safe-- but the fact we have so many is not a good sign; perhaps now we catch them faster than we put in new ones? If you want it safe, you'd lock down features...and focus on reduced complexity and lower performance... and probably more shared libraries.

Not as bad as C... it's had to get this bad before finally C started doing serious work to add features being demand for decades and all the security problems that were arrogantly ignored. You have staying power when you can adapt and while C was so well made it lasted all this time nobody can predict all future needs and they needed to grow. Rust answered the demand and C is only just beginning to realize as it loses ground and more importantly, strong advocates. It's another example of hubris. Those "fanatics" drive movements that almost always start out small. C++ tries to be everything to please everybody and maybe goes too far, but C hasn't done enough and so Rust is eating it's lunch - and it may take over the other meals too.

...I locked myself to 149 because I don't want to see ads.

As Big Cable ever... EVER... been for something good?

How bad it has to be the most hated companies are turning on their orange prophet of Satan.

I've had students legitimately using translation tools to get better english. With AI, they do much better but also it looks like AI and I can't possibly tell if they had AI do the work or if they merely translated or corrected their poor mixed english answers. So then everything has to be evaluated without the tools they come to depend upon. Tools that are legitimate if limited to translation. The subject isn't english and is not a requirement for competency in that subject; they could go back home with their degree and rarely speak english ever again - and that is totally fine! (good! improve the world with their new skills.)

Clever bot, you removed your em-dash from your reply!

They are so bent on faking intelligence we are not allowed specialized tools - or when we had them those are being replaced with these fake general intelligence chat bot.

Grammar checkers are old; they did get better and I read some so good they were re-writing too much and actually limited due to expert feedback which users may have liked. Today to get a good grammar checker is hard because even the ones you pay for are trying to replace them with general AI bots.

It wouldn't hallucinate, etc. if it wasn't trying to replace the whole human! It does so much better when limited in scope and built-for-purpose. Much of what is done today is just chat bots running commands for other tools which themselves have specialized intelligence (better term, A-pplied I-ntelligence; aka, real AI all this time.)

We need AI that processes all the API bloat and gives us nice glue code; does routine design patterns-- which we've spent decades trying to formalize in languages and paradigms (like OOP itself) and then we could develop programming languages around what the AI is good at melding together while leaving out all this new general intern stuff of adapting Stack Exchange answers. I waste so much time on API...and you think well designed systems with well designed APIs will exist in the future? why migrate to a good one when the old crap of multiple APIs of multiple frameworks can all be spaghetti coded together for you by an AI? the new one won't be directly used by a human anymore and the AI lacks training data for it. When it grows into a huge rats nest, no human will be able to troubleshoot it and the AI will eventually screw it up and not get out... complexity theory will always win because problems out scale solutions and intelligence. Our API rat nest solutions force new abstractions, refactoring, rewrites, etc. because we are unable to proceed with the complexity we trapped ourselves within - the AI will do the same but at levels beyond us. Maybe you can get it to refactor with bigger contexts (eventually outside of our comprehension but probably simplified... can you trust or know what is going on?? "good enough" is going to ensnare many.)

It takes one hell of a toll to try to do verbal exams 1:1 on students to evaluate them. In person exams in a monitored room are not so easy either... not that we have a huge problem now with undetectable ear plugs or smart glasses or anal beads or remote controls... but that tech progresses and demand will increase with more in person testing. A radio shielded test room would work well until local run AI fits in your underwear. Then you have an increasing number of IEPs so you can't even do a quiz without extra BS because more and more haven't adapted to testing.

Sure, I do not do well with testing but I managed to adapt and survive; it's not fair that I couldn't thrive in that environment but that is life. We're raising generations of artificially disabled adults because incompetent parents are over compensating by making demands on everybody but themselves.

Also keep in mind, evaluations take away TIME from learning. Sure it could be part of learning but it is not.

Frankly, I allow the cheating unofficially. If the society can't produce a minimum level of honesty (and it is made abundantly clear what is dishonest,) a corrupt population is going to be represented by a corrupt leadership and the incompetence comes with all that. The USA's decline has been preceded by increased corruption of the public and those of us in education must have been noticing a trend. I know I have for decades. The score is all that matters; understanding does not - for the majority - much more so for the parents (who only care about the child getting a job in the distant future. "Fake it until you make it" seems like mantra to Gen X parents.)

The attitude of firing officials who publish bad results; demanding the messengers deliver good results, is not far from the parents/students blaming the educator for poor results. As Mencken said:
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."