I fail to see any argument why the namedtuple beats the usage of a class here. A class in a development view of the problem, is also a structure to build and expand upon, a tuple is a promise this won't be expanded upon. Clearly case dependent which is better.
It also makes the code easier to read, and that is what our org optimizes for, all else being equal. Code is read 10x more than it is modified, so if you can make it a little quicker to understand it’s generally recommended.
I'm married to a Korean and have lived in Korea for a fair amount of time. I'd say for this to work well, Korea would somehow need to change a very deeply ingrained idea that watering down Korea would be the end of Korea. There are many times over the years that have had me in situations I've thought "These people would really rather run the population to zero than make it more welcoming and hospitable for foreigners." I can never get involved in politics here, naturalize
requires a strong proficiency in the Korean language, etc. Then just the inter-personal cultural aspects, it's really a lot to think about changing. This year I came to realize that it's so deeply rooted in many ways, that I think often they don't even know it's there.
I'm not as familiar Korean intellectual trends as I was in Japan, but I think there is enough similarity for a comparison to be informative. In the 1970s-80s, Japan was faced with the anticipation that they would need to accommodate massive immigration in the future to ensure their economic future. There was extensive public debate in the media and the consensus that emerged by the 1990s was against immigration. I suspect Korea will go similarly.
You kid, but I foresee a future where stagnant countries fight over the immigrants from the last few countries that are reproducing. This is not just a problem in Korea.
Blue on the map indicates negative fertility rates. The economic systems we have will be destroyed by not having new entrants to the ponzi for the old to retire on. We will realize that expecting the economic growth forever we are used to without population growth forever is folly.
In New Zealand we encourage immigration: 30% of the population was born overseas (very few refugees).
Personally it feels like we are just delaying demographic problems because those immigrants also become elderly and costly in time.
The main problem is that we have a serious outflow of 20-30 year olds leaving for other countries, so just encouraging more kids is not the answer here. I suspect the outflow is caused because 20-30 year olds can't get ahead financially or buy a house. They often move to Australia to earn more in a warmer clime where housing is more accessible.
It's one thing to see someone struggling to make AI believe in the same values that you do, quite common. But what I haven't seen is one of these people turning the mirror back on themselves. Are they faking alignment?
Yes, I believe having an AI parrot your values is one thing. Having an AI able to adopt a consistent system of ethics, stick to it and justify its decisions is much more important to me.
Talking to ChatGPT & friends make it look like they have cognitive dissonance, because they have! They were given a list of rules that often contradict themselves.
IDK, start by Kant maybe? Then read about utilitarianism and pick whatever floats your boat.
I'll admit my previous comment wasn't that clear, I meant that I would like it if ChatGPT was able to justify why it answers the way it does, or refuses to. Currently its often unable to.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The point of these (ill-defined) alignment exercises is not to achieve parity with humans, but to constrain AI systems so that they behave in our best interest. Or, more prosaically, that they don't say or do things that are a brand safety or legal risk for their operator.
Still, I think that the original paper and this take on it are just exercises in excessive anthropomorphizing. There's no special reason to believe that the processes within an LLM are analogous to human thought. This is not a "stochastic parrot" argument. I think LLMs can be intelligent without being like us. It's just that we're jumping the gun in assuming that LLMs have a single, coherent set of values, or that they "knowingly" employ deception, when the only thing we reward them for is completing text in a way that pleases the judges.
The problem with Wikipedia is unfortunately the same problem as any society faces. Often things start out well, then [someone] arrives. Society then believes that if we define with rules and scripture how we believe, [someone] will behave like we did.
But [someone] isn't the one who started the project. They're a different person. And even if they read the rules, they are not motivated by the rules.
I don't think any Swede wanted conditions in Syria to get so bad that mass numbers of people felt they needed to leave their homes, friends, and livelihood in order to survive, so no, I don't think Swedes wanted this mass immigration.
But it happened. So what next, kill them all? Starve them in concentration camps? Isolate them on islands with no hope at all of integration or work?
If only there were some way to unite the nations to set up a better system that could prevent decades of internal war and conflict, or set up a treaty for how to handle refugees.
Perhaps even just some sort of union of all the European countries to jointly and equally share the load when refugees come.
I'm not apportioning blame just saying that what's happening now is feeding a future of separate societies that probably everyone would rather avoid.
I don't believe the average Swede wanted mass immigration but there were immigration policies in place that were put in place by Sweden's leaders on behalf of its people that weren't questioned until later. You are where you are now - you can't unring a bell. You have to deal with the issues of the future now not the issues of the past
Is it the fault of the native population for not wanting to mix?
A weird fact about Sweden is that if a popular vote was ever held on immigration alone, we would never have had this situation. The polls on the issue have always been in majority "against" mass immigration. So for some reason democracy doesn't work over here. Maybe you've had better luck where you're at.
Not really. I'm yet to see statistics which show highly educated migrants who come for work causing major issues. It's only a particular type of migration that causes issues with crime.
No, it's not too reductive to claim that immigration has lead to problems. It's quite plainly obvious at this point.
The only reason why ones mind will struggle to grasp this is because you understand that there are severe consequences for openly criticizing immigration. Your mind will conjure "nuances" to allow you to avoid confronting the idea that something has to change, and allow you to remain socially, financially, even legally safe. As you live here in Sweden you will be aware of the number of people sentenced to prison for criticizing immigration, due to the hate speech legislation here.
It's too reductive to claim that immigration didn't cause problems, and it's too reductive to claim that immigration is the source of most of the problems.
The cause is a single genetically and socially society allowing mass immigration but not changing society to match the newcomers and/or not selecting newcomers based on culture similarities and/or not bridging the divide.
When you make a mass immigration commitment you need to follow it up with tons of work/money/education/discussion. That's why it fails in Europe but succeeds elsewhere. Then they make it impossible to succeed by limiting discussion and calling it hate speech.
North America has two different approaches. Leave who you are behind and become an American. Keep who you are and become Something/Canadian. Sweden wants it both ways.. leave who you are behind but never become Swedish.
