fckgnad

6 ms·

1.
by fckgnad 4y ago
This is a continuation from my other reply. Read the other comment first. Or not, it's rather long. I type fast. >These days I struggle to watch a movie, there are just too many options, AI is only going to make this problem worse.
2.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>You're just arguing some people are afraid of being replaced by AI, new flash? No I'm saying many people are afraid enough such that they organized a law suit against AI. Something that never happened before. THAT is sufficien
3.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Nothing wrong with this being on the front page. Just posting this here as a question. Is the reason why this is on the front page because a good number of software engineers addicted? Maybe you don't have the numbers but you yourself
4.
by fckgnad 4y ago
A child is well aware of the parent-child hierarchy that is more or less universal across all modern cultures. You've been conditioned by this book to follow a fringe belief.
5.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Be real. You can convince people to read a book without having to copy all 600 pages here. Saying that you're incapable of doing so when every book on the face of the earth has summaries, snippets and reviews to promote themselves is j
6.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>Which part of it? ;) Leading a team of software engineers? Identifying and negotiating vague parts of business requirements? Designing technical specs? Or maybe the part where I am responsible for software actually working correctly as
7.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>This. The educational system, willingly or just incompetently manages to instill a sense that human intelligence somehow grows monotonically with historical time. Several remarks here. It is growing with time. Average IQ grows every yea
8.
by fckgnad 4y ago
No one is obliged to do anything. I am saying your attitude makes it so that other people who haven't read the book are less likely to read it when they read your words. You are actively making your viewpoint less popular. You are not
9.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>This sort of argument--that those reports must be inaccurate, because--well, I'm not sure why you you think these reports are inaccurate, except that you think they must be. And that's not a reason. It's happened before:
10.
by fckgnad 4y ago
A 692 page book needs more then "right there" as a reason to plow through it. Just saying.
11.
by fckgnad 4y ago
My opinion is the status quo of anthropology. Your claiming that the opinion is wrong and not inline with reality? Do you have evidence other then something along the lines of "read the book or your delusional?" I can tell you oth
12.
by fckgnad 4y ago
I just started reading this. I'm hopeful but the forward and the first chapter don't look good. First off at least one of the authors is into social justice. Social Justice tenants run completely counter to many of the findings of
13.
by fckgnad 4y ago
There's no magic here. There's no claim that chatGPT is useful either. The claim is that chatGPT is a precursor to a technology that will replace many human jobs because it's showing tell tale signs of intelligence that is qu
14.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Not from an anthologists perspective. Obviously my perspective is not as in-depth as that. I'm coming from a more general laymans perspective. If you're saying a more detailed anthropologist perspective can change my viewpoint the
15.
by fckgnad 4y ago
What is the point of coming onto this thread other then to see if the book is worth reading or not? It's fair to assume a lot of people on this thread haven't read it. I never Denied examples didn't exist. I stated your argum
16.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Hierarchies are places where one relies on many. That is the point of a hierarchy... so that a few can control and rely on many. It is the most unfair way to organize.
17.
by fckgnad 4y ago
The forward of the book stated this about one of the authors: "He was an activist and public intellectual of international repute who tried to live his ideas about social justice" I worry that this book may be under the same light
18.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Thanks. You convinced me. I will read.
19.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Valid. I will say the article states there were still hierarchical tendencies in the societies and leadership is mentioned in that society. Other then that, How do we know that whether or not Aboriginals in Australia are the norm? Are they
20.
by fckgnad 4y ago
So yes. I was right. everything I'm claiming is opposite of what the book proposes. Perhaps I'll read it. I will say that what I'm "claiming" is what's claimed by academia. It's the status quo. If DoE does
21.
by fckgnad 4y ago
But what does a doctrine widely taught have anything to do with whether it's true or false? Clearly you think it's false but do you have evidence? Please present evidence if you do. Examples in biology, similar species or specific
22.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Right this is a possibility. More likely though is that he's in a school of thought and you are in another school of thought because Jordan Peterson Clearly isn't the only academic who believes this. Most schools of thought have v
23.
by fckgnad 4y ago
I think those societies are rare and observations of those societies are inaccurate. There must be hierarchies in those societies, it's just misreported. More evidence of the relationship between hierarchy and biology: https:/&#x
24.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Why? because what I'm saying here is completely opposite of what that book proposes?
25.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>Hierarchies are not, in fact, "heavily part of human behavior". They appear in certain circumstances, and dissipate when the circumstances do. G&W point out that we are brainwashed otherwise. I see it as a case of learned
26.
by fckgnad 4y ago
No I don't think this is true. Hierarchies are heavily part of human behavior. The concept of leaders and rank is so ingrained in behavior it's hard to think it didn't exist even in hunter and gatherer societies. Right now we
27.
by fckgnad 4y ago
You seem to not realize how big the the gap between zero intelligence and first year student is. I can tell you, that gap is vast, vastly bigger then half baked homework to A level paper. But this is besides the point. If you've been f
28.
by fckgnad 4y ago
Relax. It's not as smart as a human, ok? It does have issues there's no denying this. But it is impressively smarter then you thought. You didn't dig into this thing deeply enough, and you dismissed as if it was some other ge
29.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>Oh c'mon, is this what really impresses you? You'll be impressed once the successor of chatGPT takes your job. You realize that chatGPT wasn't trained to be a programmer right? They did virtually nothing to make it a good
30.
by fckgnad 4y ago
>When I then asked it to copyedit the draft of my article however, it failed. Making it worse and introducing numerous innacuracies. If you asked say someone who failed highschool to do the same would it do better? The jump from GPT-3 be

More ›