Well no one can prove they have a mind to anyone other than themselves.

And to extend that, there’s obviously a way for electrical information processing to give rise to consciousness. And no one knows how that could be possible.

Meaning something like a true, alien AI would probably conclude that we are not conscious and instead are just very intelligent meat computers.

So, while there’s no reason to believe that current AI models could result in consciousness, no one can prove the opposite either.

I think the argument currently boils down to, “we understand how AI models work, but we don’t understand how our minds work. Therefore, ???, and so no consciousness for AI”

Everyone can only do the best they can. Anyone who expects everyone to have zero impact is an idiot. Even a salad involved death and cruelty somewhere (animals caught in farm equipment, underpaid immigrant farmers who get abandoned if injured, etc).

So really, all you can do in your life if you care about these things is minimize your impact as much as you can based on what you know.

Similar to people who value giving to charity. Do they give all of their spare money to charity? No and no one should expect them to. Just giving anything to charity regularly has a positive impact and the whole “you’re not doing enough” does much more damage than good.

Reminds me of vegetarians/vegans. I’m not really either, but I don’t eat meat. And I’m just happy when I hear people say they want to eat less meat. Whereas most people who are against meat are only happy if someone else is also against it completely.

The people who claim “real estate value!” have just latched onto the simplest reason they can which aligns with their worldview.

The reasons I suspect companies are forcing return to office are more:

• shareholders don’t like unused assets, so they tell the ceo to “use it or lose it”
• the people who make the decision have the type of extroverted personality where they actually do work better in the office and they can’t fathom people being different
• the people who make the decision prefer to have the office full because it makes them feel more powerful. They can see the people they lord over.

We should handle it the same way we treat invasive animals 🙂

Or classic torrents combined with a VPN.

Tesla under pays compared to other car companies.

We won’t always need it. It’ll run out eventually so it has to be replaced at some point. Even if you ignore the climate change part.

Also, a lazy worker at home will be lazy in an office too.

If someone likes to procrastinate, you can’t really change that via environment alone.

Now they’re all about open floor plans for collaboration (read: for squeezing more people in the same space).

You could do it if you had to for some reason. But it would be the hackiest thing ever and not work very well.

Duck duck go has kept getting better and google has kept getting worse.

I find the results are pretty even now and often lean in DDG’s favour (but not always, obviously).

Because of this, I’ve set my default everywhere to DDG and give Google a whirl sometimes if that doesn’t work out for a specific search.

Meh, humanity is getting what it deserves. We literally did this to ourselves.

Nah. The managers prefer in-office and companies are addicted to “corporate culture” which they can’t control if you’re working from home.

It has nothing to do with firing people (unless you want the most competent people to quit) nor does it have anything to do with real estate (no company will try to help fix a collective action problem voluntarily unless the attempt gives good PR or profits)

I agree. I think people are just missing the point. It’s really far from being able to replace a worker.

It’s current capabilities at best can help that worker be slightly faster at certain things. It’s akin to a type of search engine.

It can generate simple stuff accurately quite often. You just have to keep in mind that it could be dead wrong and you have to test/verify what it says.

Sonetimes I feel like a few lines of code should be doable in one line using a specific technique, so I ask it to do that and see what it does. I don’t just take what it says and use it, I see how it tried to solve it and then check it. For example by looking up if the method it used exists and reading the doc for that method.

Exact same as what I would do if I saw someone on stack overflow or reddit recommending something.

I like it for certain techy things. I just used it to create a linux one-liner command for counting the unique occurances of a regex pattern. I often forget specific flags for Linux commands like how uniq can perform counting.

And something like that is easy to test each piece of what it said and go from there.

As long as you treat it like a peer who prefaced the statement with “I might be wrong / if I recall correctly” it ends up being a pretty good aid.

I just don’t understand how people find accounts they like to follow.

Millennials, according to Wikipedia,

The generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996

After that is Gen Z and Gen Alpha starts somewhere around 2010.

So 1997 would be an older Gen Z

Doesn’t golf have benefits for wildfires? The courses act as a fire break and if they’re built on the edge of towns can help stop the fire.

It does nothing to fix the root cause but things that help mitigate climate disasters are good too.

Distinction without a difference in this case.