• 0 Posts
  • 258 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • Hypothetically, yes, but during covid was when a company had to truly learn the work-at-home model. Some succeeded, some failed, but the reality is it was an excuse not to try. Automated is cheaper, and laying off employees because a pandemic has closed doors is a great excuse.

    “I’m sorry, due to an abundance of caution we are unwilling to reopen the offices and do not have the infrastructure to have you work securely from home, so we’re going to have to furlough everyone until further notice”

    Then they have a month testing the automated system and hit “good enough” by their standards so then they say the furlough becomes a layoff and everyone loses.




  • Lots of people want adjacent room lights or beyond to be on.

    I turn all the lights in my house on at night, despite the savings loss, because I just prefer being able to see into other rooms. (I also use 100w-equivalent bulbs, to really boost the brightness).

    Some people have fears, rational or irrational, about the dark. Children, people paranoid about someone breaking in, etc.

    Some people feel pets should be able to see where they’re going.





  • I dunno about pricing back then but the issue is the amount of wealth that can be generated from a situation like that.

    Like, hypothetically, let’s split your grandfather into two people. A landlord, and a maintenance guy hired to maintain those properties, getting paid a fair wage.

    Would the landlord make money, after paying a mortgage and his maintenance man?

    If the answer is no, then becoming a landlord isn’t financially beneficial, and your grandfather could’ve just been a handyman, and made a steadier income, his money not directly dependent on whether or not someone paid rent.

    If the answer is yes, then your grandfather made more money than his labor was worth. While he earned money doing labor, the real issue is the money he earned by doing nothing. It’s likely your grandfather made quite a bit more money than his labor was worth, given the fact that property management companies live entirely off of the price difference from labor put into housing and the price they can charge.

    Landlords are middlemen. They’re used car salesman for houses. Are there landlords that aren’t shitty? Yeah. My last landlord was awesome, he actually sold me the house I was renting, when I told him I was gonna buy a house and start my family. He was nice, reasonable, all those things. The total rent at the time (pre-covid, so a lot better than now, and split among 6 people) was 2250$, and my mortgage worked out to be 900$.

    Did your grandfather put effort in? Yes. Did he make money doing nothing? Also yes, the difference between what his labor was worth and what he got paid.

    That margin didn’t come from his labor or his smart investments, it came from other people trying to live, and potentially created hardships. If his tenants could’ve paid for the actual cost of housing instead of whatever your grandfather charged, that might mean another kid got to go to college, a father getting to retire earlier, a family that could’ve worked 1 job instead of 2.

    Your grandfather is probably fine, he likely understood hardships and acted like a human being, but he still belonged to a class of people that are better off if they find ways to minimize the amount of money other people have. Some people judge others for taking what they don’t need.


  • I do agree it’s not realistic, but it can be done.

    I have to assume the people that allow the AI to generate 10,000 answers expect that to be useful in some way, and am extrapolating on what basis they might have for that.

    Unit tests would be it. QA can have a big back and forth with programming, usually. Unlike that, QA can just throw away a failed solution in this case, with no need to iterate on that case.

    I mean, consider the quality of AI-generated answers. Most will fail with the most basic QA tools, reducing 10,000 to hundreds, maybe even just dozens of potential successes. While the QA phase becomes more extensive afterwards, its feasible.

    All we need is… Oh right, several dedicated nuclear reactors.

    The overall plan is ridiculous, overengineered, and solved by just hiring a developer or 2, but someone testing a bunch of submissions that are all wrong in different ways is in fact already in the skill set of people teaching computer science in college.


  • Khanzarate@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.worldThe GPT Era Is Already Ending
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    14 days ago

    Well actually there’s ways to automate quality assurance.

    If a programmer reasonably knew that one of these 10,000 files was the “correct” code, they could pull out quality assurance tests and find that code pretty dang easily, all things considered.

    Those tests would eliminate most of the 9,999 wrong ones, and then the QA person could look through the remaining ones by hand. Like a capcha for programming code.

    The power usage still makes this a ridiculous solution.





  • Most that would die in the street would have an underlying condition, like ague or bleeding or even old age, since most people that starve would try to do something about it.

    If you’re sick you might not be able to. If you find a job or charity successfully you’ve averted the death. If you tried to steal and fail you’ll get on the executed list, or if you got wounded but got away, you’ll be on the bleeding list, or if you succeed then you dont die on the street.

    I imagine those six would have the “died of unknown causes” phrase attached to them in modern times.