Good luck with that.

I am not seeing it in my students or not more than in the last 30 years. But these are all advanced (and the weak ones have already washed out), I am teaching in Europe and I am teaching subjects that are known to be more difficult (IT security) and that are elective. So my view may be skewed.

Prompt:

Hey ChatGPT, who is being reasonable in this argument?

---
Rei: " ... We think of bees as mindless drones (literally, we took the very word!), but they're all individuals each acting on their own.... "

Synonymous Homonym: "Drones are specifically the male bees. Most bees are not drones."

Rei: "That's not what I said. I said that the word "drone", as in a mindless unthinking being, is derived from drones, as in male bees. I did not say "all bees are drone bees"."

Synonymous Homonym: "What you actually said:

We think of bees as mindless drones (literally, we took the very word!)

Suggesting that the word "drone" means "mindless bee.""

Response:

Rei is being more reasonable here.

The key issue is whether Rei's original sentence implied that all bees are drones or that "drone" as a metaphor comes from bees.

Rei wrote:

"We think of bees as mindless drones (literally, we took the very word!)"

The parenthetical "literally, we took the very word!" naturally reads as:

The figurative word drone (meaning a repetitive, unthinking worker) comes from the bee term drone.
Therefore, our cultural association of bees with "dronelike" behavior is reflected in language.

That is a claim about etymology, not about bee taxonomy.

Synonymous Homonym's first correction:

"Drones are specifically the male bees. Most bees are not drones."

is technically true, but it doesn't actually address what Rei was saying. Rei wasn't claiming that all bees are male drones.

Then Synonymous Homonym shifts to:

"Suggesting that the word 'drone' means 'mindless bee.'"

This doesn't accurately paraphrase Rei either. Rei never said the word means "mindless bee." The sentence only suggests that the metaphorical sense of "drone" is derived from the bee term.

If I were judging the exchange, I'd say:

Synonymous Homonym's factual statement is correct: drones are male bees.
But it's responding to a claim Rei didn't make, making it a misreading.
Rei's clarification directly matches the ordinary reading of the original sentence.

So the stronger interpretation is that Synonymous Homonym misunderstood the original remark, and Rei's correction is justified.

Or to put it more simply: you're attacking a straw man (a claim I never made) because you cannot defend your actual scientifically inaccurate comments about bees having half-hour memories.

You are confusing "forgetting" with "disruption".

I am not.

Your entire argument was that bees have short-term memories. The example you cited demonstrates precisely the opposite - that bee memory is if anything too durable>/i>, such that bees will refuse won't even bother searching for their hive if it has been moved, that they always go back to the spot where they remember it being last.

However, what you are choosing to ignore is that, once a bee has been accepted into a different hive, it becomes part of that hive

That's like claiming that if you move to a different city, you've "forgotten" where you used to live.

When a bee, due to a navigation error or its previous hive being gone, enters a different hive (drifting), it absorbs the pheromones of the new hive. It is now chemically marked as belonging to that hive. Chemicals are communication to bees, just as much as vocal commands are to you. Bees do not learn all of the other bees in their hive, they don't have some sort of rolodex. If you smell like hive A, you're allowed into hive A. If you smell like hive B, you're allowed into hive B. Bees don't particularly "care" which hive they're in; they have their own individual motives and drives, which simply involve being in "a" hive. Once they're marked as belonging to hive B, they can no longer enter hive A (at least not safely).

Note in the above what has nothing to do with any of this? Memory. It's just about smell. Memory is about where the hive can be found after foraging (which is also about memory) - and it remains, even after drifting (they'll continue to return to the same spot - again, even if the new hive is moved). Smell is about which hive you can enter. Or for a summary version:

1) A bee leaves the hive to go foraging

2) It remembers where the best spot to visit is (usually from having gone there before, but occasionally from having seen a waggle dance) and what flowers (shapes, smells, sizes, etc) will be yielding best there at what times of day, and what areas to NOT go to, where there may be threats. This information persists for days, weeks, or even the bee's entire life. It can target an area to an accuracy of a couple hundred meters, and then begins a search.

3) When done, it returns back to where it remembers that the hive should be (this memory is highly persistent, and can only be reset by an orientation flight.

4) The bee starts by using the sun and broad navigational features as with outbound flights to get to within a couple hundred to a few dozen meters (the "visual catchment area"), then gradually switches to small-scale features and searching. This is all based on memory.

5) For the final approach, the bee relies on a mix of sight (remembered), sound (generic), and smell. The latter is not a learned trait, it's "whatever you happen to smell like". While it's usually described as recognizing the smell of their sisters, that's not exactly right. The actual underlying mechanism not so much learning what something does smell like as it being unable to detect what they do smell like

The mechanism the same as how humans become unable to notice their own body odour or perfume: sensory adaptation. Because they're constantly smelling themselves, their brain learns to tune out their own smell. However, it doesn't tune out the smells of others. When they return to their own hive, the scent is something that they're adapted to tune out. But when they arrive at a different hive, they're hit with a scent that they're not adapted to, and that they can detect.

If you want to put it in human terms, the underlying mechanism is "this hive thinks you're stinky, that one doesn't smell you because you've all been around each other for so long".

If you want to call sensory adaptation "forgetting", then you're going to need to call human sensory adaptation "forgetting" as well. And again, none of this has anything to do with actual memory tasks, such as navigation and how to find the best flowers. Bee memory is exceptional with them.

If they manage to keep afloat a bit longer, there may be nothing left that could be used to bail them out.

...a worse outcome, but I'm sure that Trump and his cronies will come up with one

I noticed that too. This is likely Li-Ion with some claims as to better safety. Which may simply be lies. Would not be the first time.

That is insightless nonsense. No surprise this is coming from you though.

Well, we will see. But it really is only timing that could still save things to some degree. And timing is hard to predict.

Probably not. It would require Nürnberg-style prosecution and punishments for the perpetrators, and those include the voters that voted for this shit-show. Otherwise, everybody will just expect them to do it again and US trade and investment from abroad will never recover.

It is generally the last stage before an empire collapses. The current US regime is doing its best to accelerate that process. And there are still a ton of mindless idiots that cheer this onwards.

Some FOSS projects have forgotten that, some are too underfunded to do it, bit there really is no way around it. LLM-type AI just has made that more obvious.

Who said the word "small"?

That's not really the point.

The point is the upcoming revolution in autonomous labor, which will turn our current financial system upside down.

For reference, you might want to check out Manna, by Marshall Brain (his actual name). It's an easy read, it's short, and it outlines the impact that robot labor will have on our current model of capitalism.

It's no secret that ChatGPT is useful, and a force multiplier for productive output. If that type of breakthrough can be achieved with physical processing, then much of the labor force can be replaced by robots.

The current economic structure assumes infinite consumption, that there will always be more people (rising population), and that they will always want more things. We've found out that the first part isn't true, and it seems that the second part isn't true either: once you have "enough" stuff to have a comfortable life, many people stop consuming and turn their efforts to other things. People aged 45 to 55 spend the most money (per household), but once they have accrued a level of comfort they stop and enjoy life.

If robots can do manual labor, then that will put most people out of a job. A robot factory 20 miles on a side out in the southwest US (a thought problem for discussion) could supply the material wealth of the entire nation, but only require 100,000 human workers for management, direction, and maintenance. That figure, 100,000, is negligible compared to our current population.

How do we support the remaining 300 million population?

One way is to create an AI soverign wealth fund. Some portion of the factory output is given to the population in the form of factory currency. Each month every person would get, say, $1000 of factory currency to spend, with online ordering, and the items would be delivered.

To the article's point, we know with certainty that our current economic system will transition into the factory robot model. The problem facing economists is how to transition us into that model without going through a catastrophic financial failure.

An AI soverign wealth fund could be the first step towards making that transition.

Yes. Or at least it gets marketed as such and people are generally too dumb to understand that this claim really is 95% hot air.

In any case, this makes things fundamentally different. And to reach that 20% unemployment (which may indeed be enough), this tech does not even need to deliver. It just needs to be around long enough and too many utterly dumb C-levels need to believe the lies. Ido not think we will see that this time though, the business numbers are too abysmally bad and we see more and more of the limitations of LLMs becoming hard to ignore. They may have 2-3 years left. Or not. But next time may be different.

Exactly. And they may succeed. No idea why Sanders thinks this is a good idea though.