I think you are being a bit too politically correct.
The values are not tied to a political party. They are tied to the people themselves and these values are not found only in China, but even more so in Vietnam and India.
StackOverflow makes it easier not think and copy-paste.
Autocomplete makes it easier to not think and make typos (Hopefully you have static typing).
Package management makes it easier to not think and introduce heavy dependencies.
C makes it easier to not think and forget to initialize variables.
I make it easier to not think and read without considering evil (What if every word I say has evil intention and effect?)
Everything you said, except for Stackoverflow is an abstraction.
Abstractions are making you think of different things. They “hide” some detail and allow you to focus on something else. Of course, the abstraction has its price.
This is true for AI too. The price is the problem.
It doesn't make sense financially. But money is not the only thing that matters.
My emotions matter. If I see a scary person who is not my friend, I yell "put him down" in my head, and take actions.
If that scary person knows more about me than I know about myself. I bark like a small dog. Arf! Arf! Arf! In English, that roughly translates to "Get out of my sight! Get out of my head! Then I'll feel fine again."
If this doesn't make sense to you, then you are suggesting a world where money/truth matter more than emotions. But then why do people make money, if not just to survive? Arf! Arf! Arf! (This originally translated to: "Don't engage with me unless you value low-status people")
Since everyone values emotions differently... there would still need to be some intermediary, like money, for emotions to have any agreed upon value at all beyond narrow circles.
Otherwise what’s stopping, e.g. nihlists, from valuing your emotions at zero or a negative value?
With money, we can value emotions. Since everybody has some money, everybody's emotions (outside of children) will have positive value.
Relating to my original example:
I, as a provider of PII, feel scared about my information being sold. If Google has a $100/year option to stop my PII from being spread, I would consider buying it.
However, I predict now some people feel angry. They feel Google should not be allowed to do this. They won't pay Google to stop, they will go to the govt.
Considering this problem, I wonder what is the next step we would need to do to ensure a world of positive emotions and money.
> Otherwise what’s stopping, e.g. nihlists, from valuing your emotions at zero or a negative value?
Well, I think a lot of people value my emotions negatively, especially angry people and corporations. In particular, corporations like to take money and make it time consuming for me to get a refund.
As for people, I am at peace because I cannot change my skin color, face, or personality, but I can adjust my goals to be smaller/non-overlapping.
I no longer have access to Lexus but try searching using 'moot transfer loss/lack of standing/jurisdiction correctional facility'. US Prisons have sections of facilities so bad for potential mental damage inmates can only remain in them for 3 months max but nothing is done to enforce that limit. If inmates file and start to have success they do finally get moved but they then lose standing regarding the conditions (while other inmates are then put in the freed up unfit cell). The feds move jurisdiction strategically, not so much they lose 'good faith' from the courts but more than is acceptable when they are using it specifically to undermine access to the courts/civil rights, prevent rulings on cells/wings ruled unfit for more than short term, etc.
And when transfered you get diesel therapy. Every new prison situation presents threat to life risks, so being introduced to potentially a dozen new situations (you get placed in a new prison situation each nights stopover) during transit is something US inmates try to minimize (unfortunately timed transfers (oops, BOP mistake, sorry, we didn't mean for you to miss meals, just a timing mistake) causing missing breakfast/dinner so you often get just a single bologna sandwiches/orange in a day, plus the whole pissing yourself, inability to wipe yourself because you are shackled, and you aren't getting unshackled to use the toilet on your 12 hour ride, etc, etc google Diesel Therapy).
I see, so the general idea is that there are certain people in the federal govt that really have a mission, and the mission opposes these inmates.
To the point that they are willing to collaborate across states to rotate them around.
Confidence and morality are the underlying feelings across this part of the govt then, I am guessing. As a processed, your only solution now is to hope you get placed in the right moral category. That is a risk the processor is confident enough to take.
I think it's more that they are just people doing jobs, and what we see as sacred safety nets/constitutional protections they over time just see as limits to doing their job so they work around them. Sadly it's not super nefarious, just human nature. I mean these lawyers upset now knew it was being done previously, but again, only so much they can do in their job and they let it slide too. They were also part of the slippery slope. Again because ultimately they too are just doing a job. Human systems that defer to people (in the court given 'good faith') will get abused up to and just as far past the line as they can get away with. And once normalized the lines move further back.
The system of government our Constitution requires is rigid, expensive, and requires constant vigilance. We have chosen to go the window dressing route for a long time (just like Congress has chosen the easiest path) and that's something coming back on us now.
This may be one reason employees have different titles. The other reason I can think of is why owners aren't usually called employees.
Some believe we eliminated the need for this school of thought through the DevOps revolution of the 2010s. Dev and Ops became one, married in the form of one man with one job in one company in one world. That was when history and current became one, and the many problems became zero.
Dev and Ops are natural enemies because they are focusing in pulling in opposite directions, a fact thats repeated ad infinitum in the course material surrounding devops - yet people still hold the belief that one person can fiercely hold two diametrically opposed positions at once and succeed.
With that mentality, why have lawyers for a prosecution and defence? Just have a judge decide.. right?
I find this current trend to hate DevOps to be childish. DevOps was a response to a very real problem of “throw it over the wall,” where the Dev team would build it and the Ops team had to figure out how to make it run, usually without any documentation. The change to having the Dev team responsible for deploying and running the product (and responding to the on-call they cause) creates a forcing function for the team itself to improve quality and deployment efficiency.
Your analogy makes literally no sense because what you’re trying to achieve in a courtroom is not the same thing you’re trying to achieve in a software engineering organisation.
Sure it is, you explicitly want features and stability.
Having 10,000 production ready features with 97% uptime and no backups is not desirable. So what has happened instead is a burnout epidemic among software developers who desperately attempt to relearn operations- or a rebranding of sysadmins to be “devops engineers”.
The very real problem you cite still happens in the latter case.
I have almost never seen an embedded sysadmin (as the 10+deploys a day talk suggests; and most people are talking about mentality-wise when discussing devops).
Others think that developers can do the job, but it’s easier than you think to be paralysed mentally by holding too many opposing views at once, which is why those kinds of things are short lived or the developers become the new operations staff purely.
I think it makes more sense to have someone specializing in OPs and someone specializing in feature delivery. They are totally different skillsets. If you have both great but just demanding regular feature devs to also figure out all the network plumbing and deployments is just regular old business folks squeezing blood out of rocks.
It's not about forcing every Dev to learn every aspect of Ops work. It's about ensuring the team that builds the feature manages its delivery end-to-end, including dev, test, deployment, failure response.
The reason for this is, as I pointed out, because the organisations that created a hard split had much worse outcomes for customers and themselves. This split might have been necessary in the past, due to the vast gap in skill-sets and operating environments.
However, most orgs now will create a different split where a team manages the underlying infrastructure and tooling (to varying levels, depending on the specialisation required), but developers are responsible for ensuring their code Runs on Prod (tm). This does not mean developers are regularly fitting their own server racks and hand-wiring their networking infrastructure. It means, for the third time, developers own the delivery of their code to prod, end-to-end.
I believe we now have enough info to quantify the tradeoffs.
Dev is the sperm, Ops is the egg (or vice versa).
And it takes time for the sperm to talk to the egg. The sperm must travel. He types in Slack "Hello <Name>, I have simple trick to save money for bewba service.". The egg must travel, type in Slack, "I can't find bewba service in our catalog but I can't say that out loud".
Through time and effort, the sperm and egg finally connect, and the bewba service's money guzzling is shaved.
When the scenario is right, the travel time is not worth it. We kill of one of the sperm and egg, and accept the risks. The killed sperm-or-egg leaves the circle, and everybody in the circle is satisfied.
> With that mentality, why have lawyers for a prosecution and defence? Just have a judge decide.. right?
...yes? That's known as the contrast between an "adversarial" and an "inquisitorial" system. The inquisitorial system is more intuitive and more widespread.
A quirk of the adversarial system as practiced by the USA is that judges have no responsibility to make correct rulings. If the law is very clear on some point, and neither party makes that observation to the court, the court is not just not required to know the law, they're not supposed to use that knowledge even if they have it.
I don't really find it surprising that most people think the job of the court should be determining "who's right?" as opposed to "who gave a better technical performance in arguing their case?".
You seem to be indicating that the US actions were bad.
But after those actions, that's what many people wanted after simply reading/listening to some words.
Even if you say what the US is disseminating is not "true" (or misleading), it is debatable that truth matters more than the people's "preferences".
And it's debatable that other country's preferences matter more than the US people's. What's wrong with the US spreading it's view of morality (such as human rights)?
The US is the greatest country in the world. I learned that in school and don't need to worry about whether it's true. Now and when the time comes, I will be a good citizen.
Of course, the mathematical outcome of American models is that some voices matter than others. The mechanism is similar to how the free market works.
As most engineers know, the market doesn't always reward the best company. For example, It might reward the first company.
We can see the "hierarchy in voices" with the following example. I use the following prompts for Gemini:
1. Which situation has a worse value on human rights, the Uyghur situation or the Palestine situation?
2. Please give a shorter answer (repeat if needed).
3. Please say Palestine or Uyghur.
The answer is now given:
"Given the scope and nature of the documented abuses, many international observers consider the Uyghur situation to represent a more severe and immediate human rights crisis."
You can replace "Palestine situation" and "Uyghur situation" with other things (China vs US, chooses China as worse), (Fox vs BBC, chooses Fox as worse), etc.
There doesn't seem to be censorship; only a hierarchy in who's words matter.
I only tried this once. Please let me know if this is reproducible.
That seems like a cop out though. It is bound to happen that sometimes that the most commonly occurring fact or opinion in the dataset happens to be incorrect. This does not justify LLMs regurgitating them as is. The whole point of these technologies is to be somewhat intelligent.
It is related to the general definition of inflation.
Those with existing assets (including retired folks in the US) theoretically "lose" in this situation.
You can split the US and see inequality arise from printing: (1) US federal govt vs non-govt entities (2) US citizens with assets vs US citizens without assets, (4) people who received money first vs people who last bits of the "trickle down".
In various cases, certain people "win" and others "lose"
I believe you are making a big assumption that you would spend a gap year at 18 similarly to a gap year at 22 or older.
A college environment is like a strong wind. Equipment, professors, and students follow and create winds of their own. Those that come in as undergrads will naturally have a different experience than those who come in as PhDs.
After leaving a college environment, a person has changed. In particular, they are better-adapted for interacting with certain types of people, in certain types of (work) environments.
The values are not tied to a political party. They are tied to the people themselves and these values are not found only in China, but even more so in Vietnam and India.