I’m glad they reported on this, but the author needs to look into federal regulations for people who work on or hold federal contracts. There’s a ton of qualified language in there that makes it clear they didn’t do a ton of research. It’s actually much more black and white than they make it seem.
I’ve worked as a federal contractor, and before I could even start onboarding, they do an intensive background check and interview where they ask probing questions about substance use (among many other things) and then they check up on your answers with a number of third parties (acquaintances, colleagues etc). Nearly without exception, if you want a job in the civil service, any prior drug use is almost always automatically disqualifying. Telling the truth about it doesn’t win you any favors with investigators either, so the general recommendation is that if you’ve smoked weed in the past, you must consistently lie about it, or you won’t get a federal job (or contracting job).
And that’s just weed. This guy does and talks about doing hard drugs in public.
The fact that it doesn’t seem to be a problem for someone who has pocketed such absurd amounts of taxpayer money from federal contracts, to openly use schedule 1 drugs in public, is one of the best examples of the legal double standards the rich have come to expect. Anyone who isn’t a billionaire would be prosecuted and jailed for the behavior Musk brags about. And they’d obviously never be awarded a federal contract.
Drugs should be legal. But until they are, these double standards have got to go.
My family still has pretty significant generational trauma from surviving the Holocaust, so the genocide going on in Palestine is quite black and white for us. It’s wrong, Israel’s behavior is monstrous and immoral, and it needs to stop. The Palestinians never deserved this. We talk about it constantly.
Your question kinda implies that we all must have family deployed in a war zone though (unless I misunderstood), and that’s not the case. I’m American. I do have some Israeli relatives who I won’t ever speak to again because they support the genocide, but they’ve all aged out of the army.
I come back to this problem every year or so because I’m never satisfied with my music metadata. Years ago I had my musicbrainz picard settings dialed in really nicely, where I could drag folder over and it would spit out the right thing like 7 out of 10 times. It still required a lot of doubled checking and manual oversight though, so I was never satisfied.
I tried mediamonkey for a while, because it has decent metadata support and plugs into most of the expected APIs. But when all is said and done, all these tools use the same data sources, and none of them are exactly consistent with each other so matches aren’t as straightforward as they should be.
Lidar never quite did it for me, so I haven’t looked at my install in a couple years. But based on @skoberlink@lemmy.world’s recommendation I’ll try a fresh install and see if get I better results this time. I’m always happy in the arr interfaces.
This may be splitting hairs, but this is being pushed on EPA scientists by the political appointees. This is why the politicization of these agencies is so critically dangerous. EPA scientists are incredibly talented and their recommendations are largely driven by good science. They know their shit. This is not that, this is political appointees forcing “interpretations” that the scientists themselves would undoubtedly take issue with.
I’m not making excuses, this is bad no matter how you slice it, but blame should be directed at the political appointees.
Let’s say I open a medical textbook a few different times to find the answer to something concrete, and each time the same reference material leads me to a different answer but every answer it provides is wrong but confidently passes it off as right. Then yes, that medical textbook should be banned.
Quality control is incredibly important, especially when people will use these systems to make potentially life-changing decisions for them.
I want real, legally-binding regulation, that’s completely agnostic about the size of the company. OpenAI, for example, needs to be regulated with the same intensity as a much smaller company. And OpenAI should have no say in how they are regulated.
I want transparent and regular reporting on energy consumption by any AI company, including where they get their energy and how much they pay for it.
Before any model is released to the public, I want clear evidence that the LLM will tell me if it doesn’t know something, and will never hallucinate or make something up.
Every step of any deductive process needs to be citable and traceable.
I find Kenyatta’s comments to be pretty disingenuous, to be honest. He talks about how important it is that everything have the same source of truth, but then says shit like this:
“We’re not for the incumbents; we’re also not for the challengers,” he said. “We are for listening to our voters who make the decisions about who they want our nominees to be.”
That’s just laughably untrue. The DNC has almost always favored incumbents and establishment candidates, that’s why it’s so incredibly unpopular and why most Democrats don’t believe it represents their actual values.
“You look at every story that’s written about this, and it’s, ‘Oh, my gosh, the party is doing this to David.’”
No, I haven’t seen that narrative anywhere. What I have seen is a lot of disillusioned leftists pissed off on Hoggs’s behalf because of the intra-party double standard he has helped expose. Kenyatta harps about how unhelpful all the infighting is while he contributes to the infighting.
It’s not just that it was written by an LLM, it’s that you didn’t write it.
This platform is for reading stuff written by people. Whether that’s news, comments, whatever. You’ll find plenty of AI communities here, but each community has a culture and norms, and you’re now feeling what it’s like to push against those norms.
There’s an obvious difference in language and tone between LLMs and a genuine comment written by a living breathing human being. Most of your comments read like they were written by a PR firm, and that’s just not fun for anyone.
Don’t rely on a machine to filter and improve your thoughts. Use your own thinking and writing to do that, otherwise you’ll quickly be blocked by all the humans here who actually participate.
Lemmy users are pretty skeptical of anything that reads like it came out of an LLM. I downvote and block all the low-effort slop I see.
This might fly on other platforms, but lots of Lemmy users came here to get away from this kind of stuff.
If you want to engage with people in good faith, then take the time to think through your thoughts, and write them out using your own words. If you’re not willing to take the time to write a post yourself, I’m not going to take the time to read it.
Oh yeah, that last point rings true for my dad too. My family hired a health aid to assist with our relative who he’s helping care for in home hospice, and we fought with him for weeks to defer to the aid’s expertise. He believes, despite the fact that this is literally her career, that he knows better how to take care of someone on their deathbed. Despite not having gone through it before, or having any medical or healthcare experience. He would snap at the aid for showing him how to do something.
We ultimately had to have a heart-to-heart with the aid to apologize for his behavior and to teach her how to use his own narcissism against him so he would do things the right way.
I think he’d be a grandiose narcissist. He truly believes he’s the best and can’t be wrong. And when someone calmly and carefully explains why he is wrong about a particular thing, his mood flips 180 degrees and he blows up and gets super defensive. If we don’t give up trying to convince him, his mood gets even more sour and he essentially mopes like toddler. This can be for anything, even the most trivial bullshit that wouldn’t phase anybody else.
And he does all that while bragging to anyone that will listen that he’s open-minded and loves being proven wrong.
I’m not a psychiatrist, so this is all observational for me, but my father is a narcissist so I can at least tell you what he’s like.
In conversation, or any interaction, if the topic veers into anything that my father can’t relate to or isn’t aware of from his own personal experience, he immediately reframes the topic so it’s about him. This consistently happens in the middle of a conversation, and it usually interrupts someone speaking. The interruption is always unrelated to what the person was actually saying, so after he interrupts you can always see the person he cut off deflate and shrink away from the conversation. Because it’s clear he wasn’t participating in a two-sided conversation, he was just waiting his turn to cut in and take over.
He manages to come across as caring, but that’s only because he knows exactly how to act so he appears that way. But his motivation is only to be praised for his apparent empathy, because if you probe his behavior even a little bit, it’s like a switch is flipped and he goes into a full on angry defensive mode.
For example, a close family member is dying, and he is the only one available to care for them. And he is taking care of them physically, don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that, but whenever another family-member asks for an update on their condition, his framing is always about what he has done and how he has learned what to do in a particular situation, it’s never about the condition of our dying family member.
He takes credit for every idea and new concept he comes across, even if the person who gave him the idea is in the room with him. It sometimes even happens in the same conversation.
Anyway, those are just my personal experiences living with an extremely difficult and selfish father who is incapable of thinking genuinely about other people. I learned a lot about myself and him by reading Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents. Worth a read even if you’re not thinking about a parent.
Thank you. He gets more normalized any time someone talks about this asshole and doesn’t mention his extremist and wildly unpopular views. He is a terrible person, and not enough people know why.
This article does a pretty solid job of explaining how horrible he is, though I’m sure there are better ones.
In case you’re not aware (many people aren’t) journalists almost never choose their own headlines. It is usually written by an editor after the article is finished. Journalists, especially at large papers like the Guardian, usually have no say in the headline.
If you have a general interest channel that includes most/much or your company on slack or something similar, you could post links to articles that explain the problems with relying on chatbots or best-practices for using them in a professional setting, and hope the person in question sees it. That way you don’t have to call them out personally, and the whole company can benefit from a reality check on how these things should or shouldn’t be used.
This is really well said. Throughout history, you can reliably find people on both sides of moral and humanitarian issues like this. There were Roman elite who spoke out against slavery in antiquity, there were Brits who mocked the American Colonies for owning slaves while founding a country based on freedom, there have always been men who believed in equal treatment and rights for women. Right and wrong is usually pretty clear, and in general regular people throughout the ages have been able to recognize which is which. Our values haven’t changed much, but our systems of power and accountability have.
That said, I also believe a good amount of the right wing backlash against the internment camps was performative. Because up until relatively recently, many racists themselves understood that their beliefs were terrible, so they at least tried to hide their true feelings and spoke out against obvious atrocities like this in public. But that was only so they could be accepted by the wider culture, and so they could continue to participate in left-coded spaces. They don’t need to hide how awful they are anymore because the president is leading by example.
I’m glad they reported on this, but the author needs to look into federal regulations for people who work on or hold federal contracts. There’s a ton of qualified language in there that makes it clear they didn’t do a ton of research. It’s actually much more black and white than they make it seem.
I’ve worked as a federal contractor, and before I could even start onboarding, they do an intensive background check and interview where they ask probing questions about substance use (among many other things) and then they check up on your answers with a number of third parties (acquaintances, colleagues etc). Nearly without exception, if you want a job in the civil service, any prior drug use is almost always automatically disqualifying. Telling the truth about it doesn’t win you any favors with investigators either, so the general recommendation is that if you’ve smoked weed in the past, you must consistently lie about it, or you won’t get a federal job (or contracting job).
And that’s just weed. This guy does and talks about doing hard drugs in public.
The fact that it doesn’t seem to be a problem for someone who has pocketed such absurd amounts of taxpayer money from federal contracts, to openly use schedule 1 drugs in public, is one of the best examples of the legal double standards the rich have come to expect. Anyone who isn’t a billionaire would be prosecuted and jailed for the behavior Musk brags about. And they’d obviously never be awarded a federal contract.
Drugs should be legal. But until they are, these double standards have got to go.