Yeah I noticed today, I had it work up a spreadsheet for me and I only got 3 or 4 turns in the conversation before it used up all my (pro) credits. It wasn't even super-complicated or anything, only moderately so.
As to 2., the whole of this narrative in the Phaedrus is ironic, considering it depends on the written word for its transmission, this dialouge being fully reported by Plato, filled with literary allusion, dramatic setting. Cf. "Plato's Pharmacy," by Derrida, and the work of his student, Bernard Stiegler.
If you talk to the average individual outside of California or NYC about AI, or even Waymos, they will get increasingly irate and start spouting off about “water usage” and everyone’s jobs getting taken away—as if RLHF contract work is not available to basically anyone with a college degree. I hate to say it but you cannot trust “the masses,” Marx never said mob rule, he said rule by the proletarian, the class which knows, on account of their labor, the best integration of the human organism into mechanical production. No, there is no concern for the “masses” living in pre-industrialized agrarian communities or those who have been mystified by reactionary ideas (like this so-called majority), he was referring to those whose existence was an exception, that which was free and not predictable, contingent in the operation of the economy. It is by their exceptional circumstance that radical social change is even possible, not because of any moral need to raise humanity out of its savage condition. The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances.
The masses seem kind of right to be in that mindset, if you consider it from thier point of view for even one second?
So, yes RLHF is available right now, for people with specific backgrounds. That RLHF work is temporary and it's going to make hundreds of thousands of people redundant. The RLHF work is actually job-negative, it is work which will later deprive others of a way to make a living.
Once that training work dries up, what happens to the people who were doing the job which AI now does? How do they pay rent? How do they feed and clothe themselves? What answers do any AI proponant actually have for this, or is the intention that every person shuts the critical thinking part of their brain off and trusts the computer will come up with something?
Yes well you are trusting your instinct, meanwhile the actual postings for RLHF work keep increasing, and the rates contractors accept keep going up. But who knows, maybe some superAI is going to take all their jobs away soon.
> meanwhile the actual postings for RLHF work keep increasing, and the rates contractors accept keep going up
If you knew this for fact you'd have something to corroborate, is this just vibes? Job loss numbers are published, at the very lowest end the estimates are 50k across 2025 in the US alone. I don't see any evidence RLHF is creating livelihoods at the rate AI is destroying them.
The economy is not a monad, some sectors grow rapidly, others shrink precipitously, and still others are very stable for many decades. Just because AI is booming right now does not mean that other areas will not experience deficits. And the AI boom is an international phenomenon, not restricted solely to the US, so it would be hard to measure the value of any labor input strictly according to US economic data.
> and everyone’s jobs getting taken away—as if RLHF contract work is not available to basically anyone with a college degree.
Huh? The jobs aren't going away because a few people can get temp work as traitors to automate away the jobs of their fellows? I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. the there-exists counterexample to a for-all statement), but it totally misses the point.
> The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances.
BTW, totally fine. If you like nice things and have political or economic power, it's totally on you to prevent things from getting bad enough that people want to do that. That's something libertarians would do well to remember. Propaganda only gets you so far.
All productive labor, profitable labor, involves creating something that reduces labor time. The people who manufactured looms took away the jobs of the weavers
Ah, the real Marxist constant finally rears its head. Thank you for so well demonstrating the primitive contempt for humanity which your ideology requires. What a shame none of you has actually read or studied any of that "theory" you prate about.
I would be perfectly happy to support your so-called humanity when you are capable of providing a rigorous definition of what it consists of, and one that does not require the concept of a "soul" or otherwise some basically racist, phrenological standard for the body. Because when you say humanity all I see are objects that are standardized almost too closely to the commodities they produce, a single standard that would unify and homogenize everyone in the world. That's why I don't care for "humanity," I care about power, physical power, creative power, what any individual is capable of with the right tools.
I’m not familiar with Alinsky, I’m more broadly influenced by the CCRU, although I suppose that makes my reading of Marx fairly idiosyncratic, though I do remain with him at the letter.
Nick Land has called himself a lot of things. But more interesting to me is this question: in what way may China since Deng be regarded as meaningfully Marxist? (Are they still nominally Marxist over there? Were they really ever? Maoism was its own "deviation.")
No its not quite right still, I think for the US it still makes the most sense to have the start of the summer be the longest day, because basically the earth has been heating up to that point and that’s when the energy input begins to wane. Think about it like a steak: when you take it off the grill, its still heating up a bit before it starts to cool down.
Yes fortunately it is really bad at actually making novel bioweapons or syntheses in general so whatever you made probably wouldn't do more than give someone a mild headache.
I agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons:
1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.
2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, women basically took over all the manufacturing jobs that men left when they went to war, and it helped shore up the industrial base and, in the end, helped lead to an allied victory.
In a place like Israel, there are so few people that it doesn't make a massive difference. If half the men get taken out, its not like the 2-3 million remaining women are going to be able or even want to "repopulate" so rapidly (not to mention that Israel has an interesting setup where a small section of the women make up the majority of the births--the ultra-orthodox--and the majority probably aren't having kids anyway).
I'm in a country ~5mil population (less than israel's) where men are conscripted and there is a fair amount of angst regarding their sacrifice. IMO, the cause is a mix of patriarchy and voteshare.
Factor #2 is no longer true, nowadays more and more stuff is being produced by machines. Moreover women can pick up guns. Drones can be piloted. Lethality is only going to go up.
No one sane would want to go fight in a war where lethality is high. Nor train for something that requires looming, recurring obligations for a good 10-20 years of their life. This is real sacrifce. If you want respect, at some point you have to put skin in the game.
Easier to repopulate... at the expense of men being considered essentially disposable by the society. I should have as much right to not being forcefully sent to my death to wage billionaires' wars as the other half of population.
Well, you see, if men stay alive, but women are killed, society collapses eventually as not enough new people are born. It sucks being a man in this scenario, but it is what it is.
And if you include women (well, all genders) directly in the war efforts you double the amount of soldiers you have, which would increase your chance of winning and not needing to repopulate.
The key here is to refuse fighting. Nobody becomes a hero by becoming a murderer whose goal is to defend the political power of Stalin, Napoleon, Bush, or whoever.
I suspect one tool governments across the world will resort to when they get desperate about sub-replacement fertility is changing mandatory conscription from males to the childless. Quite strong incentive, not be sent to the meatgrinder.
>Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.
This is Europe. Women won't have more children, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.
>Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime.
This is Europe. Women won't take over a large share of industrial labor, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.
reply