So you do understand the problem then.

Would it then be fair in your view to reframe the specific problem you have into the two following components?

1. This is the worst AI will ever be at being manageable by people. It will continue to improve until it's better, just like what happened with everything where AI is already better.
2. You can manage AI current gen AI with similar methods you'd need in managing your average "yes saar, of course saar, I'll go do what you say right away saar" Indian developer stereotype.

Notably, once you accept the second one, you quickly realize that you can use ControlNet style methodology of "just use a specialized AI to curate your inputs into your preferred task specific model". And for even better results, you can add model alloying into this specialized AI, so it can utilize the best way to handle the sycophantic worker. "Have a different worker check entirety of his work to see where the failures lie and fix them".

I can tell you never had to do managerial work, as you're unaware that one of the most common stereotypes of a worker. The guy who will say "yes boss" no matter what is asked of him, and you'll find out you asked too much of him only when he fails to do the task correctly and this failure is reported on. Often by someone else.

This is even worse with people that come from Indian culture, where "yes boss" is the expected answer regardless of how impossible the ask is.

It does however make a person guilty of attempted murder. Your analogy fails. P Allow me to elucidate. You are a hypocrite, telling me I cannot judge you while you can judge me. Like it or not, whether you accept that or not, that is exactly what you did.

Furthermore, I hope your intense toxicity serves you well, You apparently enjoy it.

But really, I read you as hateful and toxic, and if there is one thing I have learned from decades of successfully managing people, is that there is a level of toxicity that needs released. Congratulations, I suppose. I'm releasing you, and please do have the last word, I'm pretty certain that is critically important to you. This discussion serves no further purpose to me.

Why?

I mean, seriously. How exactly is it a good thing that someone driving past a school bus with some flashing lights gets a more serious punishment than someone who crashes into a school bus and kills a few kids?

It's owned and operated by private companies in the US because US laws make it difficult for the government to introduce the surveillance state directly. All across Europe these cameras are just owned directly by the government.

> This is what happens when you let a handful of people have too much power.

Yes. This is why we need to get rid of 99% of government.

Without which, the billionaire oligarchs couldn't function.

They're terrified of people doing unauthorized things. So they must spy on us all the time to ensure we don't.

Weak people have a desperate desire to control others, and Western governments have never been run by such weak people before.

What you're describing is fundamentally a managerial skill set.

A lot of software developers struggle with those, and quite a few are borderline incapable of it. That's going to be increasingly a problem, unless we manage to get AI trained on individual preferences, and correcting their responses into proper AI prompts. I.e. narrow model that AI incapable worker can interact with you generate a prompt for the major model that will do the actual work.

Ironically to get your computer to do what you want to, you need to train on how to use it correctly.

Prompting correctly is a part of using it correctly.

Is it worker's fault when manager fails to explain the task correctly?

This is the part that most of the "I can't make AI work" crowd miss. When you give AI instructions, it's like giving instructions to a human worker.

You need to understand its strengths and its weaknesses at least to a reasonable degree, and you need to be careful delineating what task entails, what it doesn't entail, what's a priority and what is of low relevance.

A lot of very good experts at their specific field make for horrible managers because they don't know how to explain aforementioned things. They only know how to do it themselves.

This is the most common point of failure both when leading people and when prompting AI in my experience. Essentially all those leadership skills? They matter a lot now, even for mere subject matter experts, because prompting AI is leadership just as ordering a person to perform a set of tasks with a specific goal is leadership.

Before most subject matter experts didn't need any meaningful leadership skills. They just needed to do the things related to subject they're expert in, and leadership was handled by people with a different skill set (less deep and more broad expertise coupled with at least some leadership skills).

No, bars will throw out scumbags. Public transit, at least around here, will not.

> Europe has plenty of meth-heads too, yet public transportation there does not suck

Then maybe they keep the meth-heads off the buses. But in America that's raxist or something.

There is never going to be a case where it's better to walk to where you have to wait for a bus which takes you to somewhere you have to walk home from than to just get in your car and drive there, which is why European governments concentrate on making travel worse for drivers.

The problem is that public transit is full of the public. And people with money don't want to be around them.

Here you're quite likely to end up sitting next to a meth-head who's been riding the bus all day because it's warm and the drivers let them on even when they won't pay the fare.

Cool.

Now imagine that Trump could deplatform all Democrats from government, employment and the financial system by simply deleting their Digital ID.

One click, all gone. Nothing they can do about it because they no longer exist in the digital world.

> Falcon 9 generously halved the previous price to orbit.

Note that there's a difference between price and cost.

I've seen estimates of a Falcon-9 flight with a reused booster costing around $20,000,000 which is about $1,000 a kilo to orbit. The Space Shuttle was around $20,000 a kilo and Ariane is apparently over $5,000 a kilo. So the cost is maybe 1/5 of traditional launchers.

The price is higher because when there's no competition in your price range there's no reason to cut prices lower than you have to.

If laws were primarily used by criminals to rob the law-abiding, why would you want laws?

The Sullivan Act was literally pushed by a gang-affiliated politician because the gangs were fed up with law-abiding folks shooting them when they tried to commit crimes and wanted the law-abiding disarmed.

Was that law a good idea?

"Just because something always fails, why should we stop doing it? Maybe it will work this time!"