That doesn’t seem fair, natural teeth versus dentures

That was effectively forced by the supreme Court, not the administration. Administration planned to keep the money.

I like buttons on top of the touchpads, but that really only happens when they feel like they are doing buttons for a trackpoint instead of from the pad.

So still buttons, just not on the very bottom edge.

But even then, they keep deciding the touchpad is good enough to be buttons for the trackpoint, because I suppose people demand as large a trackpad as possible.

At least on smartphones there’s some actual indications where it expects the zone to be. The touchpads with zero markings or boundaries to feel where the zones intended to be ‘middle click’ or ‘right click’ is just an absolute rough guess…

You could just upgrade, I assume RAM is cheap, haven’t looked in a while, just let me look up memory prices real quick…

By leaving 70% of the population out of the economy, based on the strength of the AI surveillance to keep them from being uppity.

Larry Ellison: “Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on."

Note that “their” best behavior, not even “our” best behavior. Explicitly this is something he sees as needed to be inflicted on others in order to have the future he imagines.

So with enough surveillance and enforcement, the rabble is kept out and maybe they can fend for themselves if they feel like it, away from the owner class reaping the benefits of what they have done.

In theory of course, I suspect ultimately this round of AI will fall short of their dreams of eliminating dependency on the labor class.

Sadly, at least for as long as I can tell, the horseshit is simply the language of the executives. They feel like they are being smart and insightful while saying nothing. So of course we are going to be stuck with it in any work that has room for bureaucracy to exist.

just tell me what’s wrong so I can improve further applications

Generally, they are terrified of giving more feedback than absolutely necessary. They might incur an accusation of unfair hiring practices. Similar story on ‘references’, confirm only employment dates, never provide a qualitative assessment, good or bad.

It’s peculiar as a thing that acts the same whether it’s right or wrong. That is a pretty big drawback when trying to use it for anything vaguely fact based. The fact that if you don’t know yourself, it sounds credible either way, is super tricky. Particularly when managers that are used to gauging credibility without knowing the material come along. They are complete suckers for AI output since they don’t have good ways to know better.

Yep, used it on my year-end self assessment. Told it what I would have written and it bullshitted it up to the appropriate length. I reviewed it and fixed where it invented some accomplishments out of nowhere that would have been awkward if I ever got called on it. Knowing that my performance assessment would only be glanced at and never read.

Similarly, a design document owed to management for something they have no actual interest in. No one honors the design doc, no one expects it to be informative that actually uses the tech, but non-technical management feels ‘included’. Didn’t even need to be reviewed, because all the ones it concretely matters know not to bother with it.

Stuff I always hated and was pointless, but someone wanted to check some boxes.

Though just had someone clearly just feed my email into a prompt and told the AI to use my points to agree with me, and that was annoying to see someone using AI to try to be a sycophant to me. If you are going to be a suck-up, at least suck-up in your own words. I won’t do it to something someone will read in earnest.

If I ignore the datacenter buildout implications and the copyright implications, access to AI facilities might be somewhat useful sometimes. But having it crammed down my throat with management second guessing my assessments of what it does makes it just insufferable.

Also, other people’s AI slop is a huge workload burden too. Even if I am measured and don’t use it much, that doesn’t spare me from the flood of crap from my colleagues…

Management is sometimes ‘true believer’, and only after the bill comes do they decide that maybe their employees shouldn’t burn as many tokens as possible anymore.

They all picture it like AI is a great things and their employees are just not tech savvy enough to appreciate it, so all they have to do is make everyone have a taste and obviously everyone will both love it and become amazingly effective. Turns out that people generally do have a decent impression, for better or for worse, and forced micro management of it doesn’t boost morale nor productivity.

They generally have a hook into the accounts the employees use to access the provider. So you can burn tokens and look ‘productive’ and have it have nothing to do with your work.

A lot of the early adopters have already figured out that measuring employee usage just ends with big AI bills and essentially zero assurance that the AI provider was used productively. Those folks discontinued things like leaderboards and review based on tokens consumed.

Sounds like this could have easily been done without AI, and if the doctor likes things going that well, emailing a questionaire ahead of the appointment would have been even better. Then instead of ‘typical questions the doctor will ask’ being close to what you get asked, you get exactly what that doctor wanted to ask.

Think the rough analogy is Jury duty. After going through that, I was frankly surprised how generally decent the folks were that were being vetted. Sure a couple were a bit off, but on the whole the folks seemed pretty reasonable. I didn’t agree with some of them, but at least they seemed to be roughly rational and open to thinking about things.

Think this assumes those selected have no friends or family. You can’t uproot a whole family, and it would be unreasonable to break up a family for the extended period of time you imagine.

In practice, it does become making them miserable, because it’s literally forced relocation and isolation from their friends, family, and financial resources.

Yes, and thus we should endeavor to find and close the loopholes as they come up.

In fact, it’s pretty much already that. While a representative makes a decent salary at $174k/year, that’s not really that much in the scheme of things. Most folks who could swing that job could swing a higher paying one, depending on the location.

So already you kind of either must want to do the job for the sake of doing the job, or (the more usual), the position has a lot of room for various ‘extracurricular’ income, whether it’s bribery or bribery adjacent in the now, promises of future cushy private sector jobs in exchange for favors now, or ability to cash in on the fame with book deals and speaking engagements in the closest to innocuous ulterior motives associated with the position.

No, they have decided what everyone was calling AGI is now “ASI”, so they can now arbitrarily declare they did what they promised but still need tons of resources to get where everyone thought they were promising.

He is a scam artist, but this specific argument in the broader reality doesn’t really stick. The argument is that no one ever sells something that yields value to anyone else, which is obviously off.

It works better if you highlight that Tesla is less like those companies. They are demonstrably big on vertical integration, including the ride shares, so for them, it is out of character, but as a generic business strategy, it’s perfectly routine.