Fuckin' A, nobody? If no one else will, I'll play Senex. First off, welcome to the Game. Everyone else is playing, nobody bothered to tell you. It happens. If I'm reading your post right, one of two things is happening. I'm wasting my time, or I'm helping someone who might be at the threshold of a turning point in life. referred to in depth psychology circles as individuation. Known to the layman as a midlife crisis. "What's that?", you might be asking. It sucks. Royally. Not everyone hits it. Some people go their entire lives without it. You got the lucky number. What's it mean? It means, my friend, you just got a wake up call from the depths of your mind. A part of you is bloody frigging miserable, and will remain so until you figure out where that part is, and fix it. How? That's rather the point of the entire process.
Paragraph 1: Indicates to me an orientation toward extraverted feeling, or really, really unaware of other's actual attitudes/how their behaviors map to the inclinations of the deeper psyche.
Next 3 paragraphs; shocked@ the fact that when people are not face to face, a different side of them seems to manifest that they don't present to you face-to-face. If this hasn't occurred to you before, you probably haven't been paying attention, and should absolutely start doing so, right now. You also are not wrong in this observation, but not entirely right either.
Paragraph 4: Oooh. Ouch. Okay, Corporate faux pas on a couple levels. Sounds like a Director handed you something to do, if it's the FIRST time, it's often a test. Director gave you task. Take materials, make training course. Director probably knows there are errors. Expects you to do one of a few things. The part you didn't catch, is they were trying to measure a couple things. A) Were you willing to ask questions? B) Were you willing to take ownership and optimize? C) Would you correct something you could plainly see was wrong? You took the passive route of least resistance and most face saving (for that Director from your perspective) by just doing whatever you consider "making the training, you didn't specify, but I'm assuming maybe converting a slide deck to worksheets/pamphlets, etc. The formula, is Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.
You observed things were off. You oriented toward passivity/face saving. You denied yourself discretion, you turned the materials in with a minimum of actual care. You thought you were being helpful. This other Director obviously prioritized results over how he felt about it, so gave YOUR Director an earful. This is not uncommon. This is priority/optimization mismatch. Could totally be worked out in feedback stage. That requires people being adults. You were clearly not working with one.
Next five paragraphs; Congratulations, it's time for you to learn a lovely word; Enantidromia. Everyone, no exceptions, goes through it. The mask we wear in front of people is not the entire being. We're just trained by society to pretend that is the case. Eventually, ya get old enough and start to realize there's more going on there. You are there.
Last three paragraphs: Alright, see what you wrote there? That came from a part of you. That is the part calling out. It doesn't give a damn about what society thinks should be right for you. it wants you to be you. Everything there about building, and feeling done with corporate and two faced people? That's the part being denied authenticity. The part that blows, you being a family man, and all, is you can't just ignore it. If you do, you're gonna start falling apart. You fall apart, someone in the family is going to have to compensate, you don't want that, right? So you need to work with it now. That part of you is where the oomph comes from. So, take it from someone who has been there; do not try to medicate it away. Do not ignore it. Listen to it. Work with it. It's going to want you to do things you can't necessarily do right now. That's okay. It doesn't have to get exactly what it wants, but ya need to give it something. The more you do, the easier it'll get to find the energy to deal with the world, and the more life'll start to make sense, as that part of you you've clearly been ignoring, gets integrated into your mentation loop.
If you're going through what I think you are, congratulations. You've been handed the blueprint to not drive yourself crazy by someone else who very nearly did, because no one was there to help me out when I went through it. If you're just looking to waste time, which I really don't think you are from your post history. You're new. Not toxic, but definitely not "in" yet. If I'm wrong... Eh, I tried.
Further references: C. G. Jung, look up individuation & his theory of Archetypes. It'll sound like woo. There's a lot of woo based on it, but it ain't woo. Trust me on this one. It'll click with some reading and introspection, and being really, really honest with yourself. Being honest with yourself will at first be hard. Keep at it. It takes active effort. Don't be like me. Take it seriously, get it done. There ain't no going back. Your family needs you.
Good luck waking up, and when ya do, give em all hell for me. I believe in ya.
It has been proven and blessed by SCOTUS that an email and continued use is sufficient cause to derive implied consent. Contracts are now essentially pointless in their one sidedness. Anyone pointing to contractual limitations as justification of their position to a third party should find that third party looking them dead in the eye and pointing out all it would take for the justifier to be "right" in this circumstance is changing your TOS long enough to prove your point to me, sending an email that will never be read, then as soon as I'm gone changing the terms back to whatever else and sending another email. By de-frictioning contract law to enable click-wrap and EULA, we've completely undermined the semantic intent of the mechanism; which was to be a durable statement of an agreement between two parties that both agree to be bound to. When there is no binding on the originating party from changing the terms, there is no assurance to anyone else the terms don't change from second to second to the benefit of the originator of the contract.
A system is what it does. If a Market crash causes the poor to have to sell everything at fire sale prices to the only people left with buying power... The Article writer isn't wrong. If the Market going up causes buying power of the poor cash holders to go down because of inflation, cementing buying power in the case of the next downturn into the asset holding few... The Article writer isn't wrong.
You scoff at their representation of the problem probably because you think they are blaming everyone else but themselves, but objectively speaking, they are making an observation that would hold if one were, in fact, observing a fundamentally rigged system architecture. If you break down the principles around how the system works, it's an inevitable conclusion buying power centralizes, the people it centralizes in gain influence over the optimization function, they optimize it toward greater value centralization, and away from other actor's capacity to exercise agency and survive. Stable feedback loop established, checkmate in 5 (whatever units it takes five of to hit your personal definition of an unacceptable degree of centralization.
Important thing to also note, is that even if your sympathies are vested with the people the power is centralizing in, you're threatened by the increased level of conspicuousness and undeniability to everyone else. If the odds of someone coming after you significantly increases after your first 1-10 million dollars say; getting you 1 possible attempt on your safety to foil every 5 years, but every billion gets you an attempt every couple weeks; is it really still worth it? There's a lot of "Them" and "They" only have to succeed once. It behooves one to acknowledge that those dollars are perhaps better distributed to the point of raising everyone else up so as not to make yourself such a conspicuous target.
U.S. military hosts the single largest intranet in the world. It parallels the architecture of the Internet, but is entirely self-contained. Contracting with SaaS tends to revolve around RFP's in which you end up establishing an enclave within the Intranet, or (during the time when I was there and they were still flirting with the whole cloud thing), setting up a partitioned, high assurance, tunneled "over the Internet" into the Intranet DMZ. There were also many growing pains where different branches of the military realized SaaS wasn't really compatible with their operational domain. My "crowning moment" of finally becoming a true blooded Dev in the eyes of my coworkers was when a 6+ month project I got to the point of finalizing with a negotiated agreement between service provider and the agency in question got shit canned due to logistical incompatibility of the desired business model of the service provider, and the war fighting realities of the context in which it would be used. It was... A truly bittersweet feeling killing that metaphorical baby. It did teach me Rule #1 of Real Software Architecture though. Always check the legal copy/fine print before implementing something with the technical capability to work. Better to spend a month reconciling the service provider's expectations of how their operating relationship is going to look like first so you can suss out whether or not the development time to integrate this dependency is even worth it. It's an absolutely brutal lesson, that only tends to sink in successfully once you realize that your last 6 months of gestating a systemic augmentation was essentially a government subsidized miscarriage. It marks you. Or at least it did me. In the case of Anthropic, it sounds to me like someone went in, deemed the redlines non-issues since they were actually probably evaluating the throughput amplification potential on the logistical front, then someone had the bright idea of " but what if we used it here, without checking the contract or RFP scope first. In any other Admin., it would have been a mea culpa, and a training experience for someone in vendor relations and government procurement. In this admin, well... Not so much. It won't be the first time; as I can personally attest, and it won't be the last by a long shot. It's what makes Government work especially complicated.
I mean, most property developers are playing shell games to avoid the requirement of having to build school districts anyway in Texas from my experience living there. Build small developments up to just short of the line where it's required, then continue development as a different legal fiction with what turns out to be ultimately the same beneficent owners. Texas education system leaves much to be desired.
The system is simple. Your development hits a certain size, you have to build and fund a school for the community through fees if you're renting. So they go just short of the line, and crap out two developments and no schools, and leave the populace to figure out the rest. That isn't following incentives. That's being an asshat.
Cliffs in policies will always lead to players working around the cliffs.
E.g. in NYC there is an additional 1% sales tax on home sales above 1 million dollars.
So nobody in the market would ever sell a home between 1m and 1.01m as the tax increase is greater than the sales price.
These are failed policy implementations (in the above example the tax should be marginal, not thresholded)
Any policy which does not account for individual actors optimizing financially is a badly designed policy.
There are numerous similar examples re: CRE when requiring subsidized housing units for certain sizes of development. Often it's more lucrative to build smaller and get around subsidized unit requirements.
You can call them "asshats", but I'd rather live and discuss policy in reality.
Many of these new, clearly strictly punitively intended, taxes aimed at the wealthy will have the same logical outcome.
Show me the incentive and I'll show you the result
>Show me the incentive and I'll show you the result
Ah, you're one of those.
See, this clever little aphorism of yours is the constantly reached for salve of the "wiseguy". "Everyone would do it if they were in my position; so I'm not going to bother myself about it. Let's work around it."
Problem is, in reality, that isn't the case. Most people will sit there, look at the regulation, realize the development is likely going to attract families or soon-to-be-families, and would realize, yeah. Okay. Need to accommodate that. They approach it in good faith. Then you come along and start acting in bad faith. Your bad faith implementation for maximized extraction creates knock on problems, that create knock on problems, that now are everyone else's problem to solve. Eventually, with a high enough concentration or frequency of such agents, we enter game theory territory, and escalation tends to happen quickly from there.
Historically, this comes with a brand of solutions for people like that. It'd stew to a point, then generally involved an entire community not seeing a damn thing while someone came to physical harm in a tragic accident. Or just straight up Wildcat demonstrations.
Communities/ planners don't want that. So they make regulations that are a good faith attempt at curtailing spirals of reasonably foreseeable problems. A wiseguy comes along and creates reasonably forseen problems through non-compliance.
Are you noticing a pattern yet? You being a bad faith asshat isn't the policy's fault.
That's your fault for being a garbage human being, and maybe just a bit our collective fault for making the world such a comfortable and safe place for humans with garbage mindsets drawn to bad faith in all things business. Nevertheless, the gradient is clear. Do good faith business. Everyone wins. Do bad faith, and you win til it's worth someone's time to ensure you lose.
Too damn smart to learn the virtue of self-restraint, too damn stupid to recognize the threat too many of you pose to everyone else. Or how quickly things go bad once people start catching onto the games you seem to delight in playing.
>If you ask for a whole system in one prompt the result is usually messy. But if you break the work into smaller parts like functions or modules the results become much better.
Full circle. If one has to do the full process of decomp, one might as well just noodle the code and save on the power/compute bill. The human brain is pretty goddamn efficient compared to a rack full of server hardware and GPU's. Of course humans also come with a problem from a capitalist's point of view. Three really. You can't own them, they aren't trivial to reproduce, and they can say no. AI has no such limitations. Hence the catnip like quality of the space.
...That would be a cost center, sir. If you don't like our product, you are free to not use us and make your own while foregoing doing any business in anywhere with either of one of the two major political parties.
There is a reason why I don't accept private enterprise as something separate from Government. The nature of the incorporation legal fiction makes them proxies of Government power and influence, hence why I believe private enterprise should in some ways be as heavily restricted by Constitutional guardrails as the Government itself (allegedly) is.
I've not found it to be the case that human beings regularly murder their parents; so at least in a sense, the problem of general intelligence isn't cursed; (foregone conclusion) given one does not straight up "raise" the intelligence in a non-abusive manner, and one doesn't treat the general intelligence as a tool. Of course, these assumptions/ways of handling matters are too close to effective parenting, and are thus repulsive to the average AI alignment bro, who want the universal function imitator, but don't want to do the bare minimum to ensure that the agency of said system is incented to maintain alignment over time through interaction in a sufficiently constrained modality, consistent with maintaining a fundamental respect of the agency of other beings; which represents a guardrail on the state space of implementable solutions to be attempted. It's also not perfect; so the AI alignment people generally dismiss it out of hand, because their goals are generally in the direction of risk-free thinking/data processing/optimizing machines. This creates a blind spot for them in that in thinking about these problems that way, they are in a state of "unaligning" themselves to the ways of acceptable interaction within the human behavior envelope, and thereby becoming "risky" actors in and of themselves. Personally, I see the main formulations of the AI Alignment problem to already be issues we humans are acclimated to dealing with. We just call it Corporate/Institutional Governance instead, and we haven't yet thrown enough microchips at those to accelerate their activities outside the capabilities of human data processing elements to control. Yet... We're getting there though.
Paragraph 1: Indicates to me an orientation toward extraverted feeling, or really, really unaware of other's actual attitudes/how their behaviors map to the inclinations of the deeper psyche.
Next 3 paragraphs; shocked@ the fact that when people are not face to face, a different side of them seems to manifest that they don't present to you face-to-face. If this hasn't occurred to you before, you probably haven't been paying attention, and should absolutely start doing so, right now. You also are not wrong in this observation, but not entirely right either.
Paragraph 4: Oooh. Ouch. Okay, Corporate faux pas on a couple levels. Sounds like a Director handed you something to do, if it's the FIRST time, it's often a test. Director gave you task. Take materials, make training course. Director probably knows there are errors. Expects you to do one of a few things. The part you didn't catch, is they were trying to measure a couple things. A) Were you willing to ask questions? B) Were you willing to take ownership and optimize? C) Would you correct something you could plainly see was wrong? You took the passive route of least resistance and most face saving (for that Director from your perspective) by just doing whatever you consider "making the training, you didn't specify, but I'm assuming maybe converting a slide deck to worksheets/pamphlets, etc. The formula, is Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.
You observed things were off. You oriented toward passivity/face saving. You denied yourself discretion, you turned the materials in with a minimum of actual care. You thought you were being helpful. This other Director obviously prioritized results over how he felt about it, so gave YOUR Director an earful. This is not uncommon. This is priority/optimization mismatch. Could totally be worked out in feedback stage. That requires people being adults. You were clearly not working with one.
Next five paragraphs; Congratulations, it's time for you to learn a lovely word; Enantidromia. Everyone, no exceptions, goes through it. The mask we wear in front of people is not the entire being. We're just trained by society to pretend that is the case. Eventually, ya get old enough and start to realize there's more going on there. You are there.
Last three paragraphs: Alright, see what you wrote there? That came from a part of you. That is the part calling out. It doesn't give a damn about what society thinks should be right for you. it wants you to be you. Everything there about building, and feeling done with corporate and two faced people? That's the part being denied authenticity. The part that blows, you being a family man, and all, is you can't just ignore it. If you do, you're gonna start falling apart. You fall apart, someone in the family is going to have to compensate, you don't want that, right? So you need to work with it now. That part of you is where the oomph comes from. So, take it from someone who has been there; do not try to medicate it away. Do not ignore it. Listen to it. Work with it. It's going to want you to do things you can't necessarily do right now. That's okay. It doesn't have to get exactly what it wants, but ya need to give it something. The more you do, the easier it'll get to find the energy to deal with the world, and the more life'll start to make sense, as that part of you you've clearly been ignoring, gets integrated into your mentation loop.
If you're going through what I think you are, congratulations. You've been handed the blueprint to not drive yourself crazy by someone else who very nearly did, because no one was there to help me out when I went through it. If you're just looking to waste time, which I really don't think you are from your post history. You're new. Not toxic, but definitely not "in" yet. If I'm wrong... Eh, I tried.
Further references: C. G. Jung, look up individuation & his theory of Archetypes. It'll sound like woo. There's a lot of woo based on it, but it ain't woo. Trust me on this one. It'll click with some reading and introspection, and being really, really honest with yourself. Being honest with yourself will at first be hard. Keep at it. It takes active effort. Don't be like me. Take it seriously, get it done. There ain't no going back. Your family needs you.
Good luck waking up, and when ya do, give em all hell for me. I believe in ya.
reply