"I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" talks about how people more fiercely reject a group very similar to their own, yet slightly different, more than they reject groups that are actually very different.

It leads to stupid gatekeeping like "treat the male chess players better than the female ones" and small nudges will never overcome it.

If women feel put off by chess unless they have their own tournaments, then they can have their own tournaments. It literally hurts nobody.

If you want to have a chess game against women, I'm sure you can do so. They aren't stopping you from playing them.

They're just stopping you from playing in the tournament they created because others were toxic to them in the existing ones.

And those cause quite a bit of damage.

AI has all the intent that we gave it, and we continue giving it. That's always been the fear. Not that it will randomly wipe out humanity.

The fear is that it will decide to do that, with a purpose. Whether we tell it to protect us and it goes too far, or it decides that it can't achieve the purpose we gave it because we'll interfere and it removes that interference...

The fear is that we will set it on that path and can't stop it.

I'm sure there have been some scifi books that have it just be random, but they're far, far less worrisome.

"Outrageous" is better. This will work on a lot of people, and they really will email their managers, because they're sheep. But it won't actually change the managers' minds for the positive. If I got wind of a plot like this against my decision, it would absolutely convince me to stay the course.

If the employees want to complain, I'll listen. If they're encouraged to complain, forget it.

So many people, especially managers, have decided they can just give the rules to the AI in English and let it make "decisions", and they think it'll do it correct every time.

"Engineering" a few years ago meant that code was written, was (mostly) deterministic, and could be debugged. Computer processing didn't mean relying on Human-like processes, it meant relying on hard-coded logic.

This is absolutely one of those "gets worse before it gets better" things, and will probably never go away fully now.

Programmers know not to tell ChatGPT to do a bunch of data processing. If they use it at all, they tell it to write code that will then do the processing. It's more efficient on tokens, and if it fails, you can fix the process, instead of wondering why it went wrong, like too much context, or the LLM model version changed and doesn't work the same now, or just randomness.

And it made me think of the new kid in town: Jev. I wonder if Jev can do this well and quickly? Not that I'm willing to pay the tokens even to find out, but it's another neat thought.

Short form, for those who wonder:

"That" is used for things that are important, and "which" is used for things that aren't. In the first sentence, they want the blue floppy disk in particular. In the second, they want the floppy disk, and it happens to be blue. The "which" is added to aid the listener, not to because the color blue is important.

If that's interesting, it's worth Googling for a more precise answer.

That's already a lot and anything easier would allow people to just take over accounts that they don't have a right to.

"to a company credit card the father had saved to his own Google account, which his son also used"

It sounds like the son didn't have an account. It was just the father's account, with billing info attached with no limits.

And just because 2 things do the same job doesn't make one a "copy" of the other.

But if it were a person, I'd still definitely think they were trying to show they were smarter than me.

Even if it's correct about that, if it were a human, I'd assume they were 1-upping me on purpose to make themselves look better.

They had previously chosen React Native because it was easier for programmers to keep it updated, since it was really just 1 codebase. With AI, those same programmers can do the more difficult version, keeping the native apps updated separately.

So did it kill a job, or did it make it possible for the existing programmers to do it better?

It's the kind of thing that is really hard to determine in general, but here, it really does sound like they only made the change because it became possible with existing resources. They would not have done it otherwise.

They seem to have gotten away with it so far, so there's no legal protection for "buying" digital at the moment.

But now that I've been working on it a month and there's a lot of documentation, it's pretty clearly ignoring parts of the documentation and parts of the code. It will come up with some ridiculous statement about how something works, and I'll challenge it, and it'll admit I'm right.

It definitely reads more documentation than any programmer I've ever worked with (myself included) but because it doesn't have a memory other than the documentation, it still makes mistakes like that.

I haven't turned on "memory" or tried it with Codex, so I don't know how that'll change soon, though.

Hybrids can just run on gas and not have to worry about the distance to the next charging station.

I was actually just getting frustrated with Jellyfin performance and had just told my wife last night that I was switching back to Plex. I didn't realize it was a .11 thing. I just realized that it had gotten worse lately.

12 is working good in the browser so far, but I haven't really put it through the paces fully on Android.