The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.
This is getting repetitive and I think it is because you aren't really trying to understand what I am saying. Please let me know when you are ready to have an actual conversation.
Yeah it's actually one of the ways I caught a previous manager using AI for their own writing (things that should not have been done with AI). They were supposed to write about something in a hyper-specific field and an entire paragraph ended up just being a rewording of one of two (third party) website pages that discuss this topic directly.
Okay so both of those ideas are incorrect.
As I said, many are literally Markovian and the main discriminator is beam, which does not really matter for helping people understand my meaning nor should it confuse anyone that understands this topic. I will repeat: there are examples that are literally Markovian. In your example, it would be me saying there are rectangular phones but you step in to say, "but look those ones are curved! You should call it a shape, not a rectangle." I'm not really wrong and your point is a nitpick that makes communication worse.
In terms of stochastic processes, no, that is incredibly vague just like calling a phone a "shape" would not be more descriptive or communicate better. So many things follow stochastic processes that are nothing like a Markov chain, whereas LLMs are like Markov Chains, either literally being them or being a modified version that uses derived tree representations.
An incredible crime.
Companies don't care about you and will literally kill you rather than lose out on control or profits. Always prioritize yourself over a company. And over a job. Easier said than done, but do the best you can.
In a more just world the remaining workers would already have a posse.
Factory owners should at minimum be afraid of the workers.
Is this referring to what I said about Markov chains or stochastic processes? If it's the former the only discriminating factor is beam and not all LLMs use that. If it's the latter then I don't know what you mean. Molecular dffusion is a classic stochastic process, I am 100% correct in my example.
Tankie was originally a Trotskyist term for the people that supported tolling tanks into Hungary in the 50s.
Of course, the term "authoritarian bootlicker" is a funny one, as its purveyors have a habit of recycling and promulgating the propaganda pushes of the US State Department and opposition to that tendency is often what gets one labelled a tankie. Like when MLK spoke positively of Castro's revolution or a Vietnam united under Ho Chi Minh rather than targeted for bombing by the US. Though I am being generous: so many people using the term are so politically illiterate that they apply it to basically anything vaguely left that they disagree with.
I think you'd be calling him a tankie.
But that's so vague. Molecules semi-randomly smashin into each other is a stochastic process
What term is that?
Being part of TWC does not mean you are having actual organizing conversations with rank and file engineers to get them to form a union. How have organizing conversations gone with Google employees? Not the ones that come to you. The ones where you go to them. Do they say yes to your direct asks? Do they join the organizing committee? Do they rat you out?
Because it's close enough. Turn off beam and redefine your state space and the property holds.
"AI" is a parlor trick. Very impressive at first, then you realize there isn't much to it that is actually meaningful. It regurgitates language patterns, patterns in images, etc. It can make a great Markov chain. But if you want to create an "AI" that just mines research papers, it will be unable to do useful things like synthesize information or describe the state of a research field. It is incapable of critical or analytical approaches. It will only be able to answer simple questions with dubious accuracy and to summarize texts (also with dubious accuracy).
Let's say you want to understand research on sugar and obesity using only a corpus from peer reviewed articles. You want to ask something like, "what is the relationship between sugar and obesity?". What will LLMs do when you ask this question? Well, they will just attempt to do associations and to construct reasonable-sounding sentences based on their set of research articles. They might even just take an actual semtence from an article and reframe it a little, just like a high schooler trying to get away with plagiarism. But they won't be able to actually mechanistically explain the overall mechanisms and will fall flat on their face when trying to discern nonsense funded by food lobbies from critical research. LLMs do not think or criticize. Of they do produce an answer that suggests controversy it will be because they either recognized diversity in the papers or, more likely, their corpus contains reviee articles that criticize articles funded by the food industry. But it will be unable to actually criticize the poor work or provide a summary of the relationship between sugar and obesity based on any actual understanding that questions, for example, whether this is even a valid question to ask in the first place (bodies are not simple!). It can only copy and mimic.
To be honest it isn't that complicated. Who stood to gain? What equipment and expertise is required for this kind of operation? And why are all of these Western countries being shady and coy about their "investigations"?
Obviously this was done via US channels and with US approval. Biden even made vague threatening remarks about it.
It appears that their bit is to act like they don't understand very simple memes.
This is narrative is getting more and more stale. It was definitely convincing maybe 15 years ago, now those same people are the ones spearheading unionization efforts in most US tech companies.
It is younger people that have been on the receiving end of worse working conditions and compensation that lead those efforts. And often it is socialists or vaguely left people doing so, as it requires a certain level of consciousness to make this happen.
The efforts based on, for example, pure ideological struggles, where the workers wrongly believed the corporate BS that they had power in the company, have done the worst. For example, the Alphabet Union isn't even a union. Its organizers were hounded out of the company and it is now just a group of disaffected people with no organizing power. This is because Google maintained salaries and perceptions of "prestige". The workers there could not be sufficiently motivated by, say, the dangers of AI or racism.
This is why the companies at the top of the list are those with the worst working conditions and prestige. Not a single FAANG.
Obviously it is always a mix of roles, but engineering roles are often the majority in most efforts, even just because they tend to be the majority of the company.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
At every round of layoffs, the identity of the tech engineer as a tech worker gets stronger and stronger.
They are becoming partially proletarianized because capital has reoriented and tech engineers are no longer in enough demand compared to their supply. Layoffs say, "we don't want to employ you, we will make more money with you gone". Fewer jobs vs. more workers is the usual arrangement under capitalism and it is the main reason why the fed targets a certain higher-than-zero level of unemployment. The "success" of private businesses, particularly large ones, is partly determined by their power over workers and in driving down wages. Tech workers were resilient against this because there was basically infinite low interest loan money for their attempts to create monopolies and therefore a ton of startups and large companies buying up those startups. We ais now in a profit-taking phase for the monopolies that developed. See: the massive Uber price hikes. This also aligns with the fed strategy of higher interest rates intended to make smaller and more precarious companies fail, thus simultaneously making more workers unemployed and reducing competition for the monopolies. They are looking to create a soft recession and pressing the buttons they can, though it isn't working exactly as they expected.
It will take a long time for the overall culture to change, it has to filter all the way down to colleges and to mass perceptions. It may even reverse if tech money explodes again and the proletarianization process reverses. I don't think it will, the long-term plan to graduate way more CS and other engineering students is paying off for the industry and the main avenues for monopolization are mature outside of "AI" hype that is mostly vaporware.
To more directly speak to tech worker unionization, if you speak to the workers at most companies you will have the least productive organizing conversations you will ever experience. They are much, much more resistant to identifying workplace issues, much more sympathetic with management, much more willing to narc on organizing efforts, and much more likely to ideologically oppose unions. These tendencies correlate to their perceived career trajectories.
That's too 5-d chess for "the US" to pull off.
It is not a complicated strategy. It just requires a large group that cares about the petrodollar. The US has a ton of those people in high places in government and finance.
The US invented the petrodollar.
I find it more plausible that the US supports Israel because Israel has a lot of powerful supporters in the US who manipulate public opinion and government policy.
Israel has powerful supporters in the US because it is in the interests of capital to support Israel. The higher interests of capital do understand why the Middle East must be destabilized for their own gain. They are fully aware of and influence, for example, the invasion to control Iraq's oil fields and depose the government of Iraq that was acting too sovereign about it. Same for the Syrian oil fields seized and controlled by the US to this day. This is also why the US promotes the Saudis as an ally - they stabilize the petrodollar system. It is no coincidence that they also target an independent Yemem.
Powerful supporters are just the middlemen for capital, as are major media campaigns. It is not explanatory to say that powerful people support a country or policy. Of course they must do so, that is how every policy decision happens: the powerful people fall in line with the decisions of capital, decisions that may have been made decades ago but are now entrenched. Capital also leverages its close collaboration with the highest levels of the state. The White House is constantly consulting finance, economic advisors from finance, think tanks built to advance the interests of finance, etc (finance is the dominsnt wing of caoital in the US). And in the other direction, capital is constantly making threats and PR pushes.
High earning emgineer types live on an ideological subculture that is, more or less, petty bourgeois. They feel they, as workers, have more in common with the CEO than the janitors. Sometimes that is true but it's usually false. They are simply paid well due to being in high demand and will all eventually learn how little respect and power they have in these places.
Left orgs should be there agitating because in lieu of that the disillusionment often leads to adopting far right false consciousness.
Sometimes the reason unionization is popular is because the employer is just that bad. There's a saying that how's, "the employer is the best union organizer".
US companies take a disproportionate share. US unions have a long history of ringing the nationalism bell to try to increase their membership through domestic increases in production. It gives them a xenophobic character that we should work to suppress.
Anyways I'm glad they're striking, hope they get a good contract.