Can’t tell if bot or posting to the wrong thread…
Can’t tell if bot or posting to the wrong thread…
I hope their health insurance covers mental care.
Jasmine rice. Makes a huge difference if you like white rice. Tastes like from a restaurant and pleasantly sticky.
Absolutely. It’s why asking it for facts is inherently bad. It can’t retain information, it is trained to give output shaped like an answer. It’s pretty good at things that don’t have a specific answer (I’ll never write another cover letter thank blob).
Now, if someone were to have the good sense to have some kind of lookup to inject correct information between the prompt and the output, we’d be cooking with gas. But that’s really human labor intensive and all the tech bros are trying to avoid that.
Gradient descent is a common algorithm in machine learning (AI* is a subset of machine learning algorithms). It refers to using math to determine how wrong an answer is in a particular direction and adjusting the algorithm to be less wrong using that information.
And to trick them into banning ranked choice voting.
Edit: spelling
There’s an amendment on the ballot here in Missouri to ban non-citizens from voting this year. Also to ban ever adopting ranked choice voting, but it’s really about that non-citizen thing. Totally not ballot candy to do something undemocratic.
If you’re in Missouri, vote no on amendment 7 please.
My satisfaction
Ow. What did I do to you?!
Upvote for use of real interrobang alone.
What, my ~7 paragraphs isn’t simple? /s
You’re correct. I think I was chafing at the systems in question predisposing friendliness to mean modes that I personally am unskilled at or uncomfortable with despite my value.
My problem with your example is that the loner didn’t have comparable value. If it was supporting other things, then it failed. If it was doing something non obvious, it shouldn’t be compared to the support. It feels fallacious, though I can’t name one specifically.
System sight is itself an issue. Many companies evaluate an employee solely on some performance metric, typically tied to money. Because it’s easy (and lazy).
I’ve had several positions where my task was to keep things running. I added no value, I prevented loss. And those positions get screwed because they’re very difficult to quantify worth and very hard to see (and if it doesn’t create money, they don’t care). You only notice them when something goes wrong. Such an employee may keep everything running all year and get a “meets expectations” because there’s an upper limit on how much contribution the system sees, and the system doesn’t want to put in the effort to see better. I may have had to climb over an air handler to get to a transducer to calibrate, but that’s not sexy and even if I report such effort, it’s what I’m supposed to do (even if I wasn’t, weekend nights are weird).
No one is going to write down “keep machine running 80% of the time” because people unassociated with the task will insist that 100% is the expectation, despite that being unreasonable.
A system built of people is not a black box. We can see them and evaluate them based on the task they’re supposed to do, but the evaluators don’t want to put in the effort to do their tasks in a way that means more work for them.
There’s a comment to be made also about scope creep for a position so that a company doesn’t have to hire marketing and engineering if they can get the engineers to do it. Despite them being suboptimal for the task. Something something down with unrestrained capitalism.
Ok. I’ve lost the plot at this point and made my point. Have a good one.
That’s a pretty contrived setup. If the two top components are not factored into the performance of the whole and they are both defined by their ability to improve other components, then the one doing it’s own thing is not, in fact, a top performer. It’s task is to support others and it fails to do so.
And what if the loner’s task is foundational? It doesn’t have much direct output, but if he’s gone and everything else goes to shit? Those ones are very hard to measure. I know, that’s been my job for a good portion of my career. And things like that are common. Expecting a given performer, say an engineer, to also be good at public speaking has always struck me as impractical.
I feel compelled to ask, but don’t demand an answer: what rules did you break?
I presume you’re outside the US? When I got my license in the US (about 15 years ago now), you needed a pulse and a basic understanding of signage for the written part. One of the few things the US gets right is the ADA, which is why we have things like ‘reasonable accommodations’.
That last one was the biggie for me and you still get to have it if you’re subclinical.
That’s what I thought too, but it hit me harder than I expected. You might be surprised. Good luck.
YMMV but if you’re doing the thing where you think along the lines of “sure I’m weird but I get along fine” (borderline offensive paraphrase, sorry), you could be similar to myself in being subclinicly autistic. Just means you’re neurodivergent but not to an extent where you get any medical or legal benefit.
I’ve found that, after my therapist quasi-diagnosed me as such, I have an easier time being kind to myself and realizing what is bothering me and why.
Just food for thought.
Yup. There’s an appeal to a simple job that you can just do and no larger stress beyond the physical. But if that job involves waste of assorted kind, then you gotta pay enough and treat people with dignity.
Yeah, sorry about that. I did mean the one you were responding to.