I am commenting this from a terrible strip club with friends who dragged me here. I wish I was in your position.

first one isn’t free

second one you have to migrate posts using ctrl+c ctrl+v and then hand type the publish date

third one you have to already have built your own SQL database

I mean it’s true here.

Promotions haven’t been worth it for 30 years. Most people stick around cuz it’s a PITA getting a new job

Similarly, my current job (now ending as they want to end remote work and I don’t want to move to a desert in a very red/religious area)- I guided them out of “block chain for supply chain” (lmao it’s cringe to even say that now) into “AI for productivity automation”

I give it 3 years max before all mentions of AI are scrubbed from the home page

No love for the God tier hovis biscuit?

decade-old spoiler warning:

they also restart the entire universe like a recalcitrant lawn mower several times, which really fucks the timeline.

Is the The Girl Who Died set in Vikings times (700 AD) actually after the Van Gogh episode (1890 AD) because the universe the Vikings exist in is newer than the one van gogh is in, which was destroyed?

Ncuti is cementing his place at the top too imo

He’s ex-C-suite of IBM and Macy’s I’m sure he’s fine.

that is to illustrate the vastness of infinity not the efficacy of monkeys

assuming one infinite monkey:

sonnet 18 has 592 characters- or a chance of 4.3x10^-848

10 trillion is ^-13 for reference.

And the universe is not even 14 billion years old.

And the ^-848 was 14 lines, a onehundredth of a single percent of the complete works.

However, it’s infinite monkeys, so the time it would take is effectively how every long it takes for one monkey to type that many lines. A few days? A week? In an infinite monkey cage it’s done at the first attempt: that’s the size of infinity.

All that to say, to replace that in power, if you converted all the mass in the universe to energy, and all the time until it’s heat death and could combine them into one machine: probably not enough to clear Titus Andronicus.

Fair, I thought they all got recalled but I guess they’re back. but I’d also counter that Waymo is extremely limited about where it can operate - roughly 10 miles max - which, relevant to my original point was entirely hand-mapped and calibrated by human operators, and the rides are monitored and directed by a control center responding in real-time to the car’s feedback.

Like my printing press example - it still takes a large human team to operate the “self” - driving car.

the comment I originally replied to claimed AI will design the autonomous machines.

It will not. It will facilitate some of the research done by humans to aid in the designing of willfully human operated machinery.

To my knowledge the only autonomous machine that exists is a roomba, which moves blindly around until it physically strikes an object, rotates a random degree and continues in a new direction until it hits something else.

Even then, it is controlled with an app and on more expensive models, some boundary setting.

It is extremely generous to call that “autonomy.”

i would be extremely surprised if before 2100 we see AI that has no human operator and no data scientist team even at a 3rd party distributor - and those things are neither a lie, nor a weaselly marketing stunt (“technically the operators are contractors and not employed by the company” etc).

We invented the printing press 584 years ago, it still requires a team of human operators.

can

might

sure. But, like I said, those are subject to a lot of caveats - that humans have to set the experiments up to ask the right questions to get those answers.

apples and oranges.

You’re comparing two products with the same value prop: transporting people and goods more effectively than carrying/walking.

In terms of mining, a drilling machine is more effective than a pickaxe. But we’re comparing current drilling machines to potential drilling machines, so the actual comparison would be:

• is an AI-designed drilling machine likely to be more productive (for any given definition of productivity) than a human-designed one?

Well, we know from experience that when (loosely defined) “AI” is used in, for e.g. pharma research, it reaps some benefits - but does not replace wholesale the drug approval process and its still a tool used by - as I originally said - human beings that impose strict parameters on both input and output as part of a larger product and method.

Back to your example: could a series of algorithmic steps - without any human intervention - provide a better car than any modern car designers? As it stands, no, nor is it on the horizon. Can it be used to spin through 4 million slight variations in hood ornaments and return the top 250 in terms of wind resistance? Maybe, and only if a human operator sets up the experiment correctly.

AI absolutely will not design machines.

It may be used within strict parameters to improve the speed of theoretically testing types of bearing or hinge or alloys or something to predict which ones would perform best under stress testing - prior to acutal testing to eliminate low-hanging fruit, but it will absolutely not generate a new idea for a machine because it can’t generate new ideas.

because some jobs have to produce a bunch of bullshit text that no one will read quickly, or else parse a bunch of bullshit text for a single phrase in the midst of it all and put it in a report.

it’s actually already a sales term in ABM - you have the decision maker, blocker, influencer, end user/stakeholder etc

the term has been around longer than the internet

why do people care for Shrek? Or Walter White? Or Antigone?

The concept of caring for fictional narratives is ages old.

you can also DM me. Lead gen manager for a $5MM software company, 11 years experience digital marketing.