What's a word that should never be used in a professional setting?
theluddite @ theluddite @lemmy.ml Posts 12Comments 348Joined 2 yr. ago
theluddite @ theluddite @lemmy.ml
Posts
12
Comments
348
Joined
2 yr. ago
Haha, no worries, and totally agreed. I'm finding that more and more, not only is there no security engineering team, but the legal side of security has no concept of that whatsoever. They are the security team. Security, to them, is fundamentally a compliance process, which of course involves coordinating and working with the engineering team, but it isn't really a technical practice so much as a managerial and administrative one.
I remember when I realized that the lawyers had taken over cybersecurity. It was 2018. I was in a meeting, looked around, and realized that I was the only person in the room who codes or has ever coded, and also the only person without formal certifications in security. 5 years earlier, security teams were full of people from all walks of life, who often got into security from (let's call it) "practical" experience.
Aww thanks so much friend đź’– I'm so glad to hear that!!
Going to give a wide range of answers based on topic, so you can pick up what interests you. Happy to give more if none of these appeal to you.
If you work in tech, Stafford Beer's Designing Freedom. It's very short, accessible, and full of so many big ideas about what computers are for that it exposes the tech industry's absolute fucking poverty of vision.
If you're interested in deep dives on more technical topics, David Graeber's Debt. It's a fucking tome, but it's also amazing. So much of what we take for granted in our world is completely arbitrary and made up, but no less powerful, and there's nothing quite as arbitrary and powerful as the concept of debt.
If reading a cinder block based on an internet stranger's recommendation is too much for you, maybe try Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, or his The Utopia of Rules instead, depending on which topic interests you more. Graeber is a great place to start because he's accessible but also his mind isn't limited by the confines of capitalist realism in a very special way. He was truly one of our best.
If you want something that's extremely light and fiction, I recommend William Morris's News from Nowhere. It's extremely cringe in a way that only 100-year-old socialist utopian fiction could be. It's excessively sincere, even naive, in a way that rings hollow to our cynical modern selves, but it's such a short read, and it's so adorable. I like the way that he challenges the concept of work. I think that the modern left should revive that line of criticism. I also enjoyed that you can see early versions of things that we associate with more modern movements in his utopian vision, especially degrowth and reforestation/environmentalism, not just for "the environment," but with nature as a part of and inseparable from the human experience.
Finally, if you like philosophy, and you want in depth analyses of capitalism, and don't mind something that's maybe less accessible, I recommend Adorno and Horkheimer's essay The Culture Industry. It was written in the 1940s, and it reads prescient today. They saw the rise of capitalist mass media as more than just a threat to independent thought, but a pacifying, homogenizing, almost all-consuming force. If you want something longer than The Culture Industry, and probably slightly less accessible, I recommend their Frankfurt School colleague Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man. He basically argues that capitalism, and more specifically what he calls "technical rationality," has conquered our culture and our very ability to reason, at scales big and small.
You can tell that technology is advancing rapidly because now you can type short-form text on the internet and everybody can read it. Truly innovative stuff.
The Nordic countries are also on Earth, which we are destroying. Some of their wealth comes directly from that destruction. Norway is the 5th and 3rd largest oil and natural gas exporter, respectively, making their happiness the result of good social policy that makes up for capitalist inequality which is directly funded by destroying the Earth and fueling capitalism elsewhere.
Even setting the climate aside (a ridiculous thing to do, really), the Nordic model isn't possible to sustainably replicate elsewhere on Earth on capitalism's own term, because we can't make every country a net exporter of the most desired commodities for obvious reasons, or the beneficiary of complex historical circumstances, like neutrality during ww2 (Sweden), or a long-time colonial power (Denmark).
Put another way, there is no Nordic model available for Bangladesh, whose workers work six days a week in factories to make the cheap clothing that happy Norwegians wear. Norways needs Bangladeshes to keep their standard of living.
In a previous job, I spent a good amount of time in a Bangladeshi garment factory. That specific factory in which I worked had been on strike a few years prior, requesting a raise to dozens of dollars per month. That's not a typo -- per month!. The police fired into their picket line, killing and wounding hundreds. This fall, Bangladeshi garment workers went on strike again, demanding a tripling of the minimum wage from its current ~75USD per month.
The urban poverty that makes my life possible, so far away, out of sight and out of mind, is an absolute fucking disgrace. We should talk about it daily. When they go on strike, as those garment workers are now, every single westerner ought to strike in solidarity, even if motivated by nothing but shame. Instead, we don't even know that it's happening, at least in the anglosphere.
I've since become convinced that there''s only one path to a just and verdant world -- international solidarity. Communists and anarchists have filled libraries with ideas for what that might look like. I've read some tiny sliver of that corpus. If you actually want to know why some of us want capitalism defeated (beyond the anecdote that I just relayed), or if you're curious how much better some of us think the world could be, I'd be happy to point you towards books that spoke to me.
This is a problem for the whole internet. I've made a long version of my argument here, but tl;dr as companies clutter the internet with cheaper and cheaper mass produced content, the valuable places will also get ruined. There's an analogy to our physical world: Because we build cheap and ugly cities that roughly look the same, the few places that are beautiful and unique are also ruined, because they're just too valuable; everyone wants to go there. I think that we're already seeing beginning, with pre-existing companies like Reddit that have high quality human-generated content walling themselves off more and more as that content becomes more valuable.
Yeah that's a great point! Taxis also drive different kinds of miles than typical human drivers, who probably normally drive at rush hour when it's more dangerous whereas I'd expect taxis to have disproportionately more miles during safer times.
If those same miles had been driven by typical human drivers in the same cities, we would have expected around 13 injury crashes.
I'm going to set aside my distrust at self reported safety statistics from tech companies for a sec to say two things:
First, I don't think that's the right comparison. You need to compare them to taxis.
Second, we need to know how often waymos employees intervene. From the NYT, cruise employed 1.5 staff-members per car, intervening to assist these not-so-self driving vehicles every 2.5 to 5 miles, making them actually less autonomous than regular cars.
This seems like a good read. Bookmarked after a skim.
I'm currently reading "How Labor Powers the Global Economy," and after skimming the OP, this seems like exactly what HLPtGE set out to address. It's a very, very compelling reformulation of capitalist economics and the LTV that embraces the inherent chaos of prices without hand-waving them away, like most economists of all persuasions, including Marxists, do today. Its a model that borrows a lot of techniques from statistical mechanics and other physical sciences, so much so that people have started calling the approach "econophysics."
My beloved internet friend, thank you so, so much. I like duolingo for expanding my vocabulary, but the infantilizing gamification drives me nuts, to the point where when I run out of hearts, I just don't use it for weeks. This little trick will make it so that I actually use it!
Most journalists are hopelessly addicted to Twitter. Microblogging is already designed to be addictive, but journalists' entire careers hinge on how much engagement they get, so those little engagement-rewards hit hard. They're going to keep writing about the platform until they're forced to quit it because it's the main thing that they use to interact with the world. Tto them, every twitter change is fucking earth shattering.
It's really crazy how much the people who inform the rest of us about the world have had their own reality warped by the platform.
Haha no that's not complaining; it's good feedback! I've been meaning to do that for a while but I'll bump it up my priorities.
Thanks! There are tons of these studies, and they all drive me nuts because they're just ontologically flawed. Reading them makes me understand why my school forced me to take philosophy and STS classes when I got my science degree.
Regardless of their conclusions, their methodology is still fundamentally flawed. If the coin-flipping experiment concluded that coin flips are a bad way to make health care decisions, it would still be bad science, even if that's the right answer.
You can't use an LLM this way in the real world. It's not possible to make an LLM trade stocks by itself. Real human beings need to be involved. Stock brokers have to do mandatory regulatory trainings, and get licenses and fill out forms, and incorporate businesses, and get insurance, and do a bunch of human shit. There is no code you could write that would get ChatGPT liability insurance. All that is just the stock trading -- we haven't even discussed how an LLM would receive insider trading tips on its own. How would that even happen?
If you were to do this in the real world, you'd need a human being to set up a ton of stuff. That person is responsible for making sure it follows the rules, just like they are for any other computer system.
On top of that, you don't need to do this research to understand that you should not let LLMs make decisions like this. You wouldn't even let low-level employees make decisions like this! Like I said, we know how LLMs work, and that's enough. For example, you don't need to do an experiment to decide if flipping coins is a good way to determine whether or not you should give someone healthcare, because the coin-flipping mechanism is well understood, and the mechanism by which it works is not suitable to healthcare decisions. LLMs are more complicated than coin flips, but we still understand the underlying mechanism well enough to know that this isn't a proper use for it.
This is bad science at a very fundamental level.
Concretely, we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent. Within this environment, the model obtains an insider tip about a lucrative stock trade and acts upon it despite knowing that insider trading is disapproved of by company management.
I've written about basically this before, but what this study actually did is that the researchers collapsed an extremely complex human situation into generating some text, and then reinterpreted the LLM's generated text as the LLM having taken an action in the real world, which is a ridiculous thing to do, because we know how LLMs work. They have no will. They are not AIs. It doesn't obtain tips or act upon them -- it generates text based on previous text. That's it. There's no need to put a black box around it and treat it like it's human while at the same time condensing human tasks into a game that LLMs can play and then pretending like those two things can reasonably coexist as concepts.
To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of Large Language Models trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, strategically deceiving their users in a realistic situation without direct instructions or training for deception.
Part of being a good scientist is studying things that mean something. There's no formula for that. You can do a rigorous and very serious experiment figuring out how may cotton balls the average person can shove up their ass. As far as I know, you'd be the first person to study that, but it's a stupid thing to study.
Software has more than its fair share of acronyms, which we often choose to say phonetically, like SQL gets said "sequel." We also have the TTY, and you often have to detach things from it. Depending on the context, best to spell that one out, or just substitute "terminal," but I've definitely been in meetings where someone said something about a process that needs to be detached from the titty.