The fact that ChatGPT gives bad answers is a plus when using it to debug your knowledge. I often bring it down from GPT 4 to GPT 3 when Iâ(TM)m using it to help with my reasoning, because when it gives me something that doesnâ(TM)t sound right, if I can then reason out why it doesnâ(TM)t sound right, it means Iâ(TM)ve reached the understanding Iâ(TM)m looking for. Itâ(TM)s not about using it as a source. Itâ(TM)s a better version of explaining something to a rubber duck to force yourself to reason it through. Better because it gives you feedback. As long as youâ(TM)re engaged, incorrect feedback is just as useful as correct one.

Because people with high clearance sometimes want attention too, and that shouldn't be surprising. We have a lot of people with high clearance, you really expect 0 of them to be crackpots?

Of course there is. Denying funding for a program that doesn't exist changes nothing, so there are no actual consequences to the provision, so you do no damage by voting yes. On the other hand, voting no will get you accused of being part of the conspiracy hiding aliens, which is a political can of worms.

We're absolutely dealing with a cabal of conspiracy theorists, but our elected officials are too cowardly to go against them. It's the safer path to just make a show of it, it even gets you some media attention which is great name-recognition for re-election time.

I've been on reddit for two long, I apologize for the giant formatting mess above. Here's the properly formatted version:

In addition to that, it's important to keep in mind that they want to be the ones to decide what the regulations are: "Murati said the company is constantly talking with governments and regulators and other organizations to agree on some level of standards."

They don't really want to be regulated, they want the ability to tell the government what the regulation should be. If the government were to regulate in a way that says, for instance, "all AI research must be open, and you must publish the methods and source" I'm pretty sure they'd be suddenly very anti-regulation considering their newer stances.

>Because they're the first on the market and benefitted from zero regulation to get where they are, and any regulation enacted now will put barriers on the growth of future competitors. In addition to that, it's important to keep in mind that they want to be the ones to decide what the regulations are: "Murati said the company is constantly talking with governments and regulators and other organizations to agree on some level of standards." They don't really want to be regulated, they want the ability to tell the government what the regulation should be. If the government were to regulate in a way that says, for instance, "all AI research must be open, and you must publish the methods and source" I'm pretty sure they'd be suddenly very anti-regulation considering their newer stances.

I agree with you in principle, but don't you find it problematic if we say that any one individual can decide which part of the classified information should not be classified because it violates the laws of the land according to their interpretation? Everyone has different interpretations, the system in place is precisely set up to make that determination.

And yes, the system can fail us, and as far as US government spying on American citizens, I think it has. However, I think that if you decide you know better than the system, you have to be brave enough to face the consequences, and face that 10+ year in federal lockup as part of your civil disobedience. If it's not worth that, it's not worth sharing.

That's a fair point. I made an implicit assumption that it's an entry-level position for someone just graduating. In which case, they don't have that much professional experience, so you ask about stuff like that.

There's time spent on both sides, and as someone who has had to interview potential hires, I'm also thinking of the time on that end. It's not just important to fill the position, it's important to not fill the position with dead weight, and I find that time spent in the interview saves a lot of time you'd waste later if you hired the wrong person.

Yeah, they are. And it doesn't help that most applicants don't have it. Anything you can do to filter them out as quickly as possible is helping, not hurting. That includes filtering out people who think they're too good to answer a few questions.

In the time it takes me to write up a 40-page response to all these questions, I could apply for jobs at 20 other companies.

It's not a 40-page response, and if you replied to that questionnaire in 40 pages, that would probably immediately filter you out. Most of those questions are a couple of sentences, some of them are a paragraph. Furthermore, why would you apply to 20 companies? Like you said, it's a seller's market. You pick two or three companies you want to work at because what they do is interesting to you, and you apply to them. That's plenty enough to get them to fight each other when negotiating for pay.

I didn't expect that they wouldn't. What I'm saying is that they can get that information in a written interview, and use the in-person interview for questions that are more suitable for it.

I didn't really see anything in there that was irrelevant to the job. Essentially trying to get information on your aptitudes, interests, and experience. The in-person interview will do a technical white-boarding and culture-fit. I like it, seems like a solid process.

What's wrong with that? I find it rather refreshing in that it gives you a pretty good idea of the skillsets they are interested in, and lets you provide a thoughtful response in context instead of depending on you coming up with answers on the spot during an in-person interview.

Well, the only financial problem that he created is that by laying people off, they can't make their debt obligations as a result of no longer getting a salary. So that's why I was using the average debt.

So you can argue solving their financial problems is one of two things: in the first case, it's paying all of their debt, which this wouldn't be enough. In the second case is that it would allow them to make payments until they find another job, which $20k would help with...but that's the purpose of unemployment, so I would argue that by paying unemployment insurance the employer has already done their part.

I find this is a pretty common argument these days, usually around taxation, but people rarely run the numbers.

Adam Neumann is worth $1.6 billion and WeWork apparently had 6,000 employees, if you divide all his wealth among all the employees, that's $267k. That's absolutely good money, but that's not a rounding error's worth of his wealth, it would be all of it. Which would be pretty unrealistic for him to be able to liquidate everything he owns without that wealth decreasing significantly on the way as well.

So what would be a rounding error of his wealth? I'd argue for that definition, we can't make it more than $100 million, since that's going to take that valuation to $1.5 billion and you call that a rounding error. Divide that up among 6,000 employees and everyone gets $17k. Assuming his employees are average Americans, the average American has $90k in debt...so doesn't exactly solve their financial problems.

I'm speaking out of my ass, because I'm sure the people who actually write papers about these things have the answers, but I'm yet to be told what it is...and calculations like what you've shown me aren't convincing to me. Because it dismisses that **physically possible**, it may not be **economically feasible**.

The first time we visited the moon was in 1969. The last time we visited the moon was in 1972. Do we have the technology to go there? Yep. But we didn't have the motivation to spend the resources to keep doing that, to extend our presence by building bases, etc. Instead we went, "shit's expensive" and quit.

What's your energy budget for acceleration to 1% of light speed, and the deceleration when you get half-way to your destination? What are the resources expended to keep people alive for a trip that will take 100s of years to the nearest stars, even if they can be kept in some kind of stasis and require minimum air and resources? How many things can go wrong in such trip, and how likely are you to give up after you lose the first one or two? How many people are willing to invest so many resources on a high risk voyage to the nearest stars where by the time the people traveling there get there, it's unlikely you'll be alive to hear their first signal? How many colonies do you want to create around you when the people who get there can't send you back any resources or engage in any meaningful trade with you within reasonable time distances?

It's not that it's impossible to do it from a physics perspective, it's that I have a hard time imagining a civilization motivated enough to fund it in a grand scale. The species might see an overall benefit in avoiding extinction when their star dies out, but the individuals taking the necessary steps to get that far aren't going to see the benefits of it. Maybe there's a few who colonized a star system very near them if they were lucky enough to have and detect a habitable planet there, but no one is hopping from that one to another system and basically going through the entire galaxy. The people who colonize that new system are essentially going to have to spend thousands of years to get to the point where they can build up the technology to make a similar trip, and they may not have another nearby planet to hop to, so may actually need to grow even further in technology, and spend even more resources before they make an attempt that will take even longer to find out if it was even successful.

Although that's a fair point, if we allow the virus to spread naturally, you also give it a chance to mutate in a way that it will help it evade your immune system.

There's a reason we have to get a flu shot every year, and it's because it's not because your body forgets how to fight it, it's because the virus changes.

Herd immunity, which is expected to happen somewhere around 70-90% of people are vaccinated.

And if your answer to that is "never going to happen," then mask mandates should never be lifted. Social pressure with angry people wanting to go back to normal and blaming the anti-vaxxers can only help.