I think the EU CRA and to a lesser degree the DSA may well restrict LLMs to what they actually can do. Which is not a lot. Better search works to some degree, but only if the user is able to filter hallucinations. The rest? Seems to work for really low quality work, but nothing else. And there is no sane reason to expect this to get significantly better.
I think the victims here are the rescue crew that had their time wasted. Doing it to yourself (as these morons did) does not make you a proper victim.
Seriously, what else is new? That the stupid ones in questions were teens seems to be immaterial.
That statement is not about someone's argument, it is about someone's person.
If you read what I wrote, you didn't understand it.
Well, that basically proves my claim of lack of sophistication, does it? Although somebody valuing money very highly ("life-changing") does already amply proves non-sophistication.
Why isn't it permanent?
Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only.
For the overwhelming majority of roles in tech, the pandemic proved not only that those workers could be WFH, but that the company's efficiency on average went up when doing so. Yes, some workers' efficiency went down, usually because of having kids who were also at home, and struggling to manage that, but once that condition went away, there was even less reason why those workers needed to be in the office. This leaves only the people for whom physically commuting to the office was necessary to avoid distractions, which is nonzero, but is again specific to the person, not the role.
I mean, if you include things like custodians, maintenance, security, food service workers, and IT, then I suppose those roles have to be partially or completely on-site, but that's only because the roles are focused on physically maintaining the site. And most of those are outsourced to contractors in any large company anyway.
Because those employees who have to go onsite might have a good reason to expect to be paid more.
The employees who truly have to go onsite are mostly support staff, and even in a pre-pandemic, pre-WFH world, were likely to be paid far less than the ones who didn't.
While I do 50/50 WFH - Onsite, if there was a person working only offsite and paid as much as me, I'd demand extra compensation for wearing suits, and work travel. They'd have to deal with it.
Work travel is a convenience for the employer. It was never actually a requirement for working with people in other states or countries, but rather a sign that they don't know how to properly manage the time zone interactions. But yeah, if they're making you travel overseas to meet with other teams or partner companies or stuff like that, they should pay you more for having to be able to drop everything and be mobile like that. Flip side is that doing so tends to be discriminatory against people with kids, etc., so it is potentially problematic to do so. A better solution is to make work travel optional, and make it "bring your family" so that you spend a week doing work and then your family joins you for a week of paid vacation as compensation.
But the fact that your employer requires you to wear suits puts your employer in the "What decade is this?" category. That's 1980s territory right there, and makes me wonder if the reason you have to be there in person is simply because your company is so far behind the rest of the industry that they can't figure out how to enable remote work properly.
In many ways, it benefits the companies as much as the employees. Two companies I've worked for have been able to reduce their real estate footprint. Changing mandatory in-person weekend work to offsite saved thousands of dollars per day.
I see - you appear to be saying that I claim that onsite work is a panacea for companies, I am not. But I will say specifically that if I insisted to not have my 50:50 arrangement, but always at home. I wouldn't be working there. And the pay and benefits are such that it would be stupid for me to decide to die on that hill. I make as much money in three months as I used to make in an entire year. Would you insist on working at home if spending some time at the office allowed you to quadruple your pay?
Defense contractor?
I can't speak for the GP, but making 4x my salary wouldn't be a motivator for me. The industry already pays stupid amounts of money. I have enough money to comfortably retire pretty much anywhere in the world, and I'm two decades from retirement age. So if I were in a situation where working from home 5 days a week were extremely important to me, rather than merely a case of me being annoyed at how much less work I get done post-pandemic, then yeah, I'd give that job up. But that's me, and everyone's situation is different.
Give me a reason exactly Why companies would want some people back after you point out that remote work is a wonderful thing for them?
Because they have decade-long commitments to leasing buildings, and that money isn't going to stop being spent just because people can't use them. Because they want to reduce headcount, and pissing off their workers is a great way to reduce attrition. Because their C-suite has large investments in companies that own buildings, which their companies lease, and if companies lease fewer buildings, it directly affects their personal bottom line. There are lots of reasons, most of which have jack s**t to do with efficiency.
It is well established that most tech companies got suddenly more efficient when everyone started working from home, at least on average, and that return-to-office mandates caused productivity to crater. Most of this is because not knowing whether your employees will be there turns out to be extremely useful, because it causes people to be judicious about scheduling meetings. As soon as we returned to the office, meeting culture came back, and we waste a quarter of our time doing nothing but status reports and listening to status reports.
I would say that part of the "escape" stories is probably just absolutely pathetic human incompetence at work. I mean, not checking signatures on access tokens? It does not get more abysmally incompetent and entirely without even basic understanding than that. Sandbox breakout is also a thing we _know_ how to prevent when we can restrict what the thing inside the sandbox can do. And monitoring whether some software is accessing the Internet? That is network monitoring 101, first week. You have to actively not do it to even be able to mess it up.
That said, we definitely have either gross criminal-level negligence and incompetence or intent in these "breakouts". We may have both. The business numbers of the LLM pushers are so abysmally and catastrophically bad, they would have found themselves in bankruptcy court years ago if they had a different product. They absolutely must keep the hype going or they are dead. So some or a lot of intent behind these "breakout" stories is more than just plausible. Overall, this cannot be a good thing and they show exceptionally bad things about the LLM makers, however the actual facts really turn out to be. These are not people you would want to give data of any value and you most certainly do not want them to have your trade-secrets, your strategies, your code or your private thoughts.
Yes. Some masochistic "anything that helps has to hurt" pathology is definitely going on in food "sciences". They really need to fix their act and start producing reliable results. Of course that also means no "flashy" and "revolutionary" results, but that is how Science you can depend on works.
They have now flip-flopped so often on everything that beyond a few very basic facts (essentially, too much sodium and too much energy intake is bad) nothing they find can be trusted. They really need to fix their act and find reliable basic insights. Research like this one here that comes with a flashy title and a mountain of caveats is not helpful at all.
so let's all move to Utah and become LDS
There are some studies showing more protein helps one lose weight, but losing weight and being healthy are not necessarily the same thing.
At this point, I've stopped giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. If they support regulations that look like they have the potential to drag the United States into becoming an authoritarian hellhole, I assume that they're actually trying to do just that. It makes it a lot easier to convince myself to vote for another candidate in every election afterwards, even if that candidate isn't as good in other areas, because at least the other candidate isn't trying to destroy our basic freedoms.
Look up the sponsors of the bill, and vote against them from now on, whether it's a primary or a general election. Repeat until ousted.
Currently, all the cosponsors are Republicans - 26 on the House bill and 4 on the Senate bill.
(Links to bills noted here.)
As of this posting, the SCREEN Act bills are cosponsored solely by how many of this political party.
What is 26 Republicans in the House and 4 Republicans in the Senate?
From the actual House/Senate bills:
This Act may be cited as the “Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act” or the “SCREEN Act”.
[rolls eyes, *sigh*]
Kyla Scanlon had a pretty good explaination of this on Instagram...
At this point, I've stopped giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. If they support regulations that look like they have the potential to drag the United States into becoming an authoritarian hellhole, I assume that they're actually trying to do just that. It makes it a lot easier to convince myself to vote for another candidate in every election afterwards, even if that candidate isn't as good in other areas, because at least the other candidate isn't trying to destroy our basic freedoms.
Look up the sponsors of the bill, and vote against them from now on, whether it's a primary or a general election. Repeat until ousted.
Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam
