Readit NewsOne thing that would be useful though is a super cheap test to check if someone has eaten meat recently.
Realistic problem from my own workplace: "Ok, ChatGPT, write clock- cycle exact embedded C code for checking in less than 5ms if firmware on this ARM is working correctly with the sensor described in datasheet.pdf. Detect and implement countermeasures for any EM interference issues due to cable length. Implement it in a generic way so it can work with Atmel and NXP microcontrollers. There is a bug that caused the sensor to sometimes return wrong values when using the system on a Kuka xyz robot, please debug."
... yeah, I'm still waiting.
Anyway, where does this "people don't need X" stop, though? You also don't need oat milk, tofu, soy, peas, etc. to survive.
Let's just go back to foraging for roots and berries and see what population size we can sustain!
Here's the reply:
------
In the discussion, various arguments have been presented surrounding the claim that women are 41% more likely to experience toxic workplace culture than men. Here, we break down the arguments into axioms and attempt to resolve them.
Argument 1: The data only shows that women are more likely to report toxic workplaces.
Axiom 1A: Women are more likely to report toxic workplaces than men.
Axiom 1B: Men are less likely to report toxic workplaces, possibly because they don't want to be perceived as a liability.
Argument 2: People typically report toxic workplaces when they are indeed toxic.
Axiom 2A: If a workplace is reported as toxic, it is likely actually toxic.
Argument 3: Men might react differently to toxic workplaces.
Axiom 3A: Men may take direct action against a former employer rather than report them on Glassdoor.
Argument 4: Women can also create toxic work environments.
Axiom 4A: Women can engage in aggressive and indirect behavior towards each other.
Axiom 4B: Evolutionary instincts and competition for resources, attention, and prestige might drive this behavior.
Argument 5: Cultural expectations shape how men and women respond to negative experiences.
Axiom 5A: Men are culturally expected to internalize negative experiences.
Axiom 5B: Women are culturally expected to attribute negative experiences to external factors.
To resolve these arguments, one could consider the following points:
1. Acknowledge that the data may reflect both actual toxic workplace experiences and differences in reporting rates between men and women. This would account for Axioms 1A, 1B, and 2A.
2. Recognize that both men and women can contribute to toxic work environments, as illustrated by Axioms 4A and 4B, but also acknowledge that they may respond differently to these experiences (Axioms 3A, 5A, and 5B).
3. Encourage open dialogue about toxic workplace culture, focusing on the experiences of both men and women, while considering the various factors that might influence their behavior and responses.
4. Promote research that investigates the different factors that contribute to toxic workplace culture, including individual, social, and cultural factors, as well as potential biases in the reporting of toxic workplaces.
By addressing these points, it is possible to gain a more comprehensive understanding of toxic workplace culture and the various factors that contribute to the differences in reported experiences between men and women.
------
As a fun exercise I made it generate a graphviz digraph from it: https://dreampuf.github.io/GraphvizOnline/#digraph%20Toxic_W... (prompt: Write a graphviz digraph based on your previous response.)
And yet, here it is ;) This whole "asked GPT, here's what it said" spiel is getting old already.
Even that's true, simple extrapolations on raw computing power make the 15 - 25 year estimate realistic. That was definitely not the case 100 years ago.
> AGI won't build a house
Are you sure? Computers are already a indispensable tool when it comes to planing something like a building. Without computers the planing would be much more labor intensive and much less safe.
And when it comes to the physical building: The branch of robotics for application on construction sides is more or less exploding the last few years. It won't take long and a lot of work on a building site can be almost fully automated.
> AGI won't pick up your trash
Well, actually cleaning robots are the first "serous AI powered robots" that start to show up in more and more average households. And even "simple" vacuum cleaner robots need quite some AI…
So AI way below AGI is already picking up the trash; and that's just the beginning.
> AGI won't mine your lithium, &c.
It won't? I'm not sure.
AI helps already to find new mining sites.
Also like with construction sites mining is something that gets automated more and more with every year passing.
All the dangerous and labor intensive but profitable tasks get automated first. That's a clear trend throughout history.
I myself am very skeptical on the current AI hype. Though I'm very sure our AI Overlords are coming, and this will happen sooner as some people would like. In 25 years we will have enough processing power to simulate human brains just by brute force. That's more or less a given. But maybe so much computing power isn't even required to reach AGI—if the used software is constructed in a smart way.
I use copilot, it definitely saves me time. At the moment just minor things, but there's no arguing, there's simply no doubt.
ChatGPT will transform forum comments. Soon human written messages like this one will be swamped by machine-assisted argue-bots. And sales-bots.
Other LLMs are doing images, which will be much the same. You can illustrate your book automatically, pretty much now. You can generate marketing images, now.
Everything creative will be affected. Music, books, movies.
It wouldn’t surprise me if C students suddenly looked like A students. Their getting proper and timely feedback for the first time.