There are plenty of jobs where 24/7 operation would be beneficial.
Like a road paving crew, or a nighttime security guard. You can pay daytime wages for someone in another timezone.
I sorta think the issue is that what LLMs do in and of themselves is extend text in a coherent way, while only a small subset of applications are directly textual. It’s incredibly generally applicable yet also difficult to apply to anything that isn’t a glorified text editor. Say you wanted to have it help you edit videos. You might provide it with a scripting language to control the editor , but now you have to maintain parity between a scripting language and the editor’s user-accessible functionality. If you’re adobe, is that really worth the manpower? If you’re a small startup trying to unseat adobe, you have to compete with decades of features and user lock in. The only way this makes sense for either party is if the LLM is crazy good at it, but the LLM can’t watch its video output and it’s also probably just okay to begin with.
Maybe your idea of afghani culture isn’t exactly representative. Also likely that the immigrants’ culture would differ from that of their native country.
Every time I see a comment like this I wonder if they just don't know that countries like Afghanistan are on an explicit travel advisory list from basically any government, or if you just conveniently fail to mention it since it doesn't fit your narrative. My country - Germany - explicitely requests all Germans to leave Afghanistan at once. Why do you think that is?
We're talking about a country that has been at war for 20 years and is now under the thumb of a fundamentalist totalitarian regime. You don't have to look far to find thousands of examples of afgani people/refugees denouncing the Taliban. Using this as a representative example of afgani culture is at best misleading. It would be like labeling the citizens of North Korean as being culturally against their own human rights and chastising them for that.
> We're talking about a country that has been at war for 20 years and is now under the thumb of a fundamentalist totalitarian regime
Culturally based attitudes to homosexuality have little if anything to do with a people‘s government. As far as I can find polls for it, disagreement and hate towards queer people is incredibly prevalent among their people.
The British government advises me against any travel to Afghanistan because Afghans might try to kill me. This is a country that fought a civil war in the pursuit of suppressing women's rights after all.
> Also likely that the immigrants’ culture would differ from that of their native country.
I hope you're right and we're getting that 1% of moderate Afghans who just believe that homosexuality is wrong, not that it should be punishable by death.
Could you do me a favour and ask yourself if you would take your wife and children on holiday to Afghanistan? Is the answer yes or no? If it's no, please explain why I should therefore be okay with my government allow undocumented Afghan men live in the hotel by my family? At a minimum should we not be vetting these people?
Many of them are people who served alongside British forces, risking their lives to try and prevent the Taliban from turning Afghanistan back into a fundamentalist hellhole. They failed, the US failed, the UK failed, but I submit that most Afghan refugees have much more up-close-and-personal reasons to hate and fear Islamic fundamentalism than you do.
I mean I doubt the problem went from 0 to 100 in the last few months, so I’m just not sure your anecdote says much about the amount of distracted driving, just bad luck.
It’s not about moral fucking high ground, it’s about actual death and dismemberment that is actually happening that wouldn’t have. I can vote for the nazi that kills 100 jews, the nazi that kills 500, or vote for nobody; show me any alternative or else i gotta get in the booth for the first guy. Anything else is pretentious moralizing that costs lives.
Except that's not what's happened. Biden and Trump are killing an equal number of Palestinians. Stop asking people to support your genocidal candidates and start demanding better from your party or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
The race was between Kamala and Trump. If you legitimately believe Kamala winning would have made zero difference to the wellbeing of any Palestinians, I don’t know what to say.
>start demanding better from your party or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Stop building strawmen and explain what I could have done on election day for the couple hours spent on voting that would have been more useful for the Palestinians than voting for Kamala, and explain why.
I know that Harris winning wouldn't have made any difference than Trump because she literally stated that she would not deviate from Biden's policy (which was as bad as Trump, if not worse).
The best thing you could have done on election day is not vote and encourage everyone you know to not vote. Our system is 100% corrupt and invalid, stop propping it up.
I will vote when there is an anti-Zionist running, until then I will abstain and encourage everyone to do the same. Very curious that going against Israel is beyond the pale for Democrats despite being a wildly popular position.
>Very curious that going against Israel is beyond the pale for Democrats despite being a wildly popular position.
Yeah cause they get money.
>Our system is 100% corrupt and invalid
Yes
>stop propping it up.
I’m not atlas holding the electoral system on my shoulders here. I think voting is unhelpful, but still worth doing when it’s the system that dominates our politics.
>The best thing you could have done on election day is not vote and encourage everyone you know to not vote.
Why does that help either change the dems or dismantle the electoral system? Most Americans don’t even vote, yet the system continues to exist just fine. If you’re saying discourage dems specifically from voting to send the party a message, again what if I’m helping elect someone worse towards Palestine?
>Biden's policy (which was as bad as Trump, if not worse).
How so? Don’t get me wrong, Biden was a-okay with the genocide, but Trump takes it a level further. There’s no attempt at an appearance of concern or moderacy.
Biden started the genocide, there would be nothing to take further if he hadn't done that. Biden also killed more people if you've been keeping track. I'm sure Trump is just as bad, but that's the point, they're both as bad as it can possibly get and both would kill Palestinians faster if they could. Not voting gives neither a mandate to do that though. It's one element that needs to be paired with direct action.
I don’t see how biden’s policy or rhetoric could be worse, and I feel like the things you’re bringing up are circumstantial. Israel has been messed up since like 1950 and it didn’t start with biden, nor do I see how he was the cause of it, more like he signed off on it. He had a lot more time than trump to kill people, so that doesn’t seem like proof of worse rhetoric and policy. I mean trump basically said he wanted gaza razed and turned into a tacky resort for tourists. That shit emboldens israel to do worse shit without fear of reprisal. With a dem president, they know they might at least run afoul of his/her base and have to be slightly toned down.
Adblock isn’t allowed or disallowed somewhere in the ten commandments or fabric of the universe or whatever. Personally, my outlook would dictate that it’s bad if it causes harm, so prove that harm is done to someone. Even then, if the harm is sufficiently small, I’m alright with doing it for my convenience, e.g. there’s some small risk I hit someone when I drive but I choose to drive even when sometimes I could walk.
Have a read about kin selection, for instance. There are lots of facts about e.g social insects (like the male/female/sterile ratio iirc) that were thought to only be explainable by group selection, but later were found to work out purely from considerations of gene selection. I'm just a layperson though, would highly recommend Dawkins writing on this stuff. It's much less polemic than his writing on religion, if that puts you off at all.
I think the basic criticism of group selection is that at an individual level it can be beneficial to go against the group's goal, and you need to explain why that doesn't happen (even very small advantages are rapidly boosted by selection). This is one of the great puzzles of selection - how does cooperation evolve from selfish interests? The theory of group selection just asserts that it does, which is not very satisfactory.
There's behaviour at an individual/group level that is only explained by selection at a lower level. Consider the placenta releasing allocrine hormones during pregnancy while the mother's body increases insulin levels, or consider male lions killing off the cubs of defeated males.
reply