oh definitely. i agree here. can't wait to read the rest of the sentence, probably saying something meaningful about the creative benefits of unstructured writing, or the importance of relying on your own thoughts and language and unique voice in the era of LLMs
> as they can literally help fine-tune agents to help assist you using your personal style.
I get it. Both things can be true. Unstructured writing can help you develop as a person. It can also teach your own model the 'real raw human train of thoughts' of your personal journey. Personally I love the idea of booting up great-great-grandpa-model that'll have been trained on his 40 years of almost daily journaling. We are not trying to 'remake him' to be clear- we are talking about being have to have an interaction chat with his personality-vibe as it was recorded by his own hand and in his own words.
I believe that they are bringing up a moral argument. Which I'm sympathetic too, having quit a job before because I found that my personal morals didn't align with the company, and the cognitive dissonance to continue working there was weighing heavily on me. The money wasn't worth the mental fight every day.
So, yes, in some cases it is better to be "right" and be forced out of business than "wrong" and remain in business. But you have to look beyond just revenue numbers. And different people will have different ideas of "right" and "wrong", obviously.
Moral arguments are a luxury of thinkers and only a small percentage of people can be reasoned with that way anyways. You can manipulate on morals but not reason in most cases.
Agreed that you cannot be in a toxic situation and not have it affect you -- so if THAT is the case -- by all means exit asap.
If it's perceived ethical conflict the only one you need to worry about is the golden rule -- and I do not mean 'he who has the gold makes the rules' I mean the real one. If that conflicts with what you are doing then also probably make an exit -- but many do not care trust me... They would take everything from you and feel justified as long as they are told (just told) it's the right thing. They never ask themselves. They do not really think for themselves. This is most people. Sadly.
But the parent didn't really argue anything, they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon. Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"?
>they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon
Yeah, that's why I took a guess at what they were trying to say.
>Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"?
What? The fact that they linked to Wikipedia, or specifically Raytheon?
Wikipedia does not intrinsically represent immorality, no. But missile manufacturing is a pretty typical example, if not the typical example, of a job that conflicts with morals.
>Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?
Who? Raytheon? The point I'm making has nothing to do with who sucks more between Meta and Raytheon.
Well, sure, I'm not disagreeing with the original point about moral choice, and in fact I agree with it (though I also think that's a luxury, as someone else pointed out).
But if someone wants to make some blanket judgement, I am asking for a little more effort. For example, I wonder if they would think the same as a Ukrainian under the protection of Patriot missiles? (also produced by Raytheon)
Here are Raytheon part markings on the tail kit of a GBU-12 Paveway glide bomb that Raytheon sold to a corrupt third word dictator, who used that weapon to murder the attendees of an innocent wedding in a country he was feuding with.
I know the part number of every airplane part I have ever designed by heart, and I would be horrified to see those part numbers in the news as evidence of a mass murder.
So, what is your moral justification for defending one of the world’s largest and despised weapons manufacturers? Are you paid to do it or is it just pro-bono work?
Excuse me, do you make personal attacks on anyone who dares ask for an actual reasoned argument?
Most if not all aerospace companies also produce military aircraft, right? Or is your reasoning that if your particular plane doesn't actually fire the bullets, then there's no moral dilemma?
Defending? I am simply pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic.
If you think Raytheon is the apex evil corporation you are very mistaken. There is hardly any separation between mega corps and state above a certain level. The same people are in majority control of IBM, Procter & Gamble, Nike, and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc, etc.
Stop consuming marketing materials as gospel.
What you see as this or that atrocity on CNN or whatever that is produced *propaganda*, made for you, and you are swallowing it blindly without thinking.
Also the responsibility is of course down to individuals and their actions-- whether you know their names or not. Objects do not go to war on their own.
I've also worked in aerospace and aviation software but that doesn't preclude me from thinking clearly about whether I'm responsible for this or that thing on the news involving planes -- you might want to stop consuming that.
i will gently point out that new york state and new york city are not the same thing
> Under that metric, the poverty threshold for a couple with two children in a rental household in New York City is now $47,190. The study found that 58 percent of New Yorkers, or more than 4.8 million people, were in families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line — about $94,000 for a couple with two children or $44,000 for a single adult. Poverty rates among Black, Latino and Asian residents were about twice as high as the rate for white residents, according to the report.
So you need 2% of your income to generate 100% of your income (assuming you need to get to work).
Sorry I just can't take these arguments in good faith. $100 in the richest city of country of the richest country in the world is basically nothing. If you can't allocate that towards your mobility then IDK what to say to you.
You're not exposed to how many people live. There are people, for example, who must choose to budget between food and medication. Those are also people without other forms of transit.
Oh which continent? Is it possible that what you assume it's normal and default is colored by your personal experience and not representative of the world at large?
what answer could i possibly give to you that would change your response? antarctica?
> Is it possible that what you assume it's normal and default is colored by your personal experience and not representative of the world at large?
of course this is true. what are you going for here. my objection is to standing up a Train Security Panopticon with "modern AI" and locking commuters (in north america) on a train (in north america) who might depend on a schedule (using a north american time zone) stuck at a station until the (north american) cops can come and pull someone (who statistically, but not for sure, would be north american) off of the car for being drunk (off of beer i've had in my personal experience, coloring this example, which may not be the beer that is representative of the world at large) and napping on the seats
which cultures? which public transportation? is it possible that what you assume is the problem is colored by your personal experience and not representative of members of a country at large?
genuinely, why is your response to being curious to ask two different LLMs to explain something to you?
the list of guidelines has 18 items in it. did you actually need them to interpret it? or is it, perhaps, you couldn’t resist a little sneering yourself?
Hang on a minute. How do you square your claim that it’s as it should be that none of us crabs should be in the bucket, with your claim that including, the crab closest to the edge of the bucket, presumably, should be climbing out of it?
EDIT: Oh, I think I understand what you mean. If I've got my understanding correct then my response is that noir_lord said that one of the crabs shouldn't be climbing out:
> Either way I don't care what you remember or think.
it does feel to me that one way to demonstrate that is to not get pissy on hackernews. i know you’re in founder mode or whatever but this comment is the thing i’m now going to remember you for
Yeah, $5 databases is something that maybe I would actually use for some hobby projects, but that one sentence just killed any interest that I had in ever giving this company my money.
Same! Unreal that he keeps digging the whole deeper and deeper. Apparently, he doesn't know how to either keep his mouth shut or humble himself to admit a mistake and ask for forgiveness to those they burned by saying 'free forever'.
oh definitely. i agree here. can't wait to read the rest of the sentence, probably saying something meaningful about the creative benefits of unstructured writing, or the importance of relying on your own thoughts and language and unique voice in the era of LLMs
> as they can literally help fine-tune agents to help assist you using your personal style.
oh
reply