By that example, PostgreSQL itself is a form of intelligence relative to a physical filing system. It doesn't seem like your working definition of intelligence has a large overlap with a layman's conception of the word.
Plus by that example, computers have always been intelligent considering that they were created to, well, compute things several orders of magnitude faster than even the smartest human can do by hand.
The argument I and others here are making is that what you call "intelligent" is a property that also other tools exhibit which are rarely called "intelligent". You can certainly do that, but that does not prove us wrong (and also doesn't fit what most people would consider "intelligence", as fuzzy as that concept might be).
"being yourself" means choosing to believe that the you that is true is competent and capable of growth while the awkwardness is a temporary barrier between that is not reflective of your true nature.
regarding #2: how many serfs came home after re-digging the toilet hole to eat a meal of hand-milled grain bread and old vegetables with the members of the family that survived infancy and thought "life just doesn't get any better than this"? Probably almost all of them
Magawa cleared 1,517,711 sq.ft of land. He could work at a pace of 2,808 sq.ft (a doubles tennis court) every 20 minutes. If he maintained that pace, he worked 180.2 hours. Let's assume, with hazardous terrain, he worked 25% that speed on average. If that's the case he worked ~720 hours during a 5-6 year career. A different rat, Ronin, that found more stuff found a total of 124 explosive devices. So Magawa found no more than 1 explosive for every 5 hours and 45 minutes of searching. Or approximately one device every 17.25 tennis courts of searching.
Money is the sledgehammer of incentives. Above a reasonable amount of pay, it's overkill and makes lots of collateral problems. The really effective incentives are status based and situational to the group dynamic
counterpoint: if I have to treat the computer like a person, what's the point of talking to a computer in the first place? Particularly when there are so many other systems that can provide answers without the runaround
You're limiting the frame to an employment situation. Higher quality sources of knowledge are free: Wikipedia, public libraries, etc. Similar quality sources of information are also free: human relationships.
Now we watch this viewpoint proliferate thousands and thousands of times over, even if it's less commonly stated so baldly, and yet people still wonder where the doomer viewpoints stem from?
While some of the ideas in this do resonate with me (or at least they're entertaining), it's unfortunate that's it's so obviously LLM generated. And some parts of it, like the INTJ exceptionalism, reek of LLM sycophancy, which then turned into to some kind of god complex...
i just actually read that and it is possibly the most morally abominable screed I've come across in a long time. Shocking that its acceptable to share in polite company
the issue brought up in the article isn't that "the algorithm is biased" but that "the algorithm causes bias". A feed could perfectly alternate between position A and position B and show no bias at all, but still select more incendiary content on topic A and drive bias towards or away from it.
And importantly, that vision being correct. The graveyard of history is full of the dedicated yet incorrect.
reply