WOW. Look, being in the country without "authorization" isn't even a crime. It's an administrative matter. Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.
The act of entry without inspection is a misdemeanor crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Repeat offenses can be felonies. It is just a civil violation if they have once entered with permission but lost it, e.g. a visa overstay or violation, adjustment denial, status expiration or revocation. So the Biden era catch-and-release rules created millions of such cases.
You missed the bigger point to focus on the technical inaccuracy:
> Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.
The electricity in both things are real, and it's unkind to twist the words of the person you responded to that way. They specifically mentioned emotions, not electricity. An AI will be completely unaffected by anything said to it.
I think it's a legitimate question, because ultimately all brain activity is electrical and chemical signals. To say that some electrical signal objectively is or is not an emotion implies that there is some objective rule for deciding this -- but I'm not aware of any such rule, only longstanding conventions.
AI isn’t programmed to have emotions. Merely to replicate a semblance of a simulacrum of said sensations. Regardless of your considerations for the electrical signals, the models are just tab-completion, ad infinitum.
No, it completely misses the point. If you say something very upsetting to me it will genuinely affect me and my day and have negative consequences for myself and the people around me, because I will have an emotional reaction. You can't upset an AI because it doesn't have the capacity to be upset, it can only return some words and then continue on as if nothing happened.
I hope that makes sense. The underlying functionality of my emotions don't matter at all, only the impact.
AIs are affected by things you say to them while those things are in their context window. Your context window for bad news is about a day.
Why are you certain that you -- a physical system amounting to a set of complex electric and chemical signals -- have this capacity for "genuine emotion", while another physical system, that outwardly behaves much the same as you, does not?
If I made a replica of your body accurate down to the atomic scale, and told that body something upsetting, it would outwardly behave as though it were experiencing an emotion. Are you claiming that it would not in fact be experiencing an emotion?
Wait, are you claiming astrology is real and that the moon landings were faked?
No of course you're not, and I'm not claiming anything about a full human replica so please don't put words in my mouth that way.
We're not talking about a replica of a body. We're talking about LLMs. They don't have bodies and can't be moved, which is the definition of emotion.
And I'm not sure what you mean that my context window is a day. That's a strange thing to say. I'm deeply affected by childhood traumas several decades after they happened. They affect the tension patterns in my body every day. An LLM isn't affected even within its context window regardless of its length. They're only affected in the sense that a microwave is affected by setting it to defrost or a calculator is affected by setting it up use RPN.
If you built a perfect replica of a human then it would feel emotions just as a human. But that's not what we're talking about is it? There's a saying in my country: If your granny had balls she would be your granda. We can argue all day about "what if x" and "what if y" but we might be better served focusing on the reality we actually have.
If you're familiar with JS frameworks, you can think of it like this:
Dioxus : React :: Leptos : SolidJS
The key for me is that Leptos leans into a JSX-like templating syntax as opposed to Dioxus's H-like function calls. So, Leptos is a bit more readable in my opinion, but that probably stems from my web dev background.
Not parent but GP: Love Leptos, I think they are on the right track.
Dioxus is good too, I think it has wider scope and they also obtained funding from external sources while Leptos is completely volunteer based.
That's a common point of view, but when your disability is never someone else's problem, it becomes waaaaaay harder to manage. You should display more empathy to people that don't follow the norm.
Except in this case, there is no information to the other party that someone has a disability. So the default that we assume someone has a disability is what most people take umbrage with.
I try to be generous as much as is reasonable. I generally assume the person who cuts me off in traffic may have an urgent need, but vaulting every misdeed to an assumption that it's due to some unknown disability crosses into unreasonable territory, if for nothing else than it's probabilistically a bad assumption. Taken to the extreme, it becomes enabling for everyone who does not have a disability but gets away with bad behavior.
if you are in computer engineering and you are not doing "ongoing learning", you deserve to be left behind. While the company should provide some opportunities for learning, ultimately, it is your responsibility.
I tend to hop into projects even if I only have a cursory knowledge of the platform and spend time ferociously reading the docs as I catch up to speed.
I ask a lot of questions of those who do know parts of it. If I hear something I don't know or understand in a meeting I always write it down and research it later.
In a dev environment, I poke at things. Back up that config file, tweak some things, see what happens. Take stuff apart, put it back together. Revert things to put it back when I'm done. It's the dev environment, it's supposed to be shaken up and messed with.
With code, I find a good debugger for whatever new platform I'm trying to get into. Put some break points into interesting spots, step into to the function, step into, step into. See what's really happening. Inspect all the things. How does this thing actually tick? Watch it spin.
When an employer offers any time for training, I take it. I try and get as much out of it as I can. My employer offers some continuing education reimbursement. I use it.
And I try and also teach things at my place of employment. This forces me to actually challenge what I do know and really dig into the topic. Sometimes I find out what I thought I knew wasn't really true! We have a regular meeting on Monday afternoons to share and talk technology. I usually talk Kubernetes and containers on the third Mondays, digging deep into how all that stuff actually works. And it's not just me rambling for an hour, we usually get good discussion going about the focus on the talk and I end up learning something knew even though I'm the one presenting!
Make time in your work schedule to spend some time learning every week. Make yourself a 30 minute or 1 hour recurring meeting with only you.
And finally, there's probably a lot of small dead time moments you have in your life. I'm not saying make all of those focused on learning tech, but if even a third of the time you would have spent doing something else unproductive you instead catch a few more minutes of a training or listen to a lightning talk from a programming conference you'll slowly still glean new stuff and find more topics to dig into when you get a chance.
Typical communist attitude.