not sure if right for your project, but an idea ive had in the past is that the organizations should have the jobs filled by people from the places they are organizing support for.
too often the work involved in taking it to an organization level is written off by the doners, and / or taken advantage of by the org. but renting a building and hiring people to take calls, perform accounting, etc has real cost that cuts into donations but it is also an area of job creation. Those jobs created, imo, are incredibly important and when they are given to people in the donating country it turns into mostly just economic activity in the doner country run on donations with just whatever amount is leftover going to the actual aid. of which, without any outright corruption, people are always eager to spend that money to make the organization side of things better.. or invest it into the organization under the guise (genuine or not) of scaling the organization such that donating a bit less today leads to more donations tomorrow. and then it becomes like any other business mostly running on debt and the actual donations are like a material cost that is constantly pressured to be cut down to pay back debts
I completely agree with this and its what we are doing already actually. Currently everyone is volunteering and all the money goes to the kids (except for bank transfer fees). I mentioned in another comment how much help I've received from the local community and the schools which has made this whole thing work. My thought was to hire Anwarite after she completes her education (if she wants) and start employing local Tanzanians as the project grows.
As a side note. I was once in a remote part of the Caribbean. When I was there I saw a shack selling Tom's shoes (the ones where if you buy a pair they donate a pair to someone in need). It seemed to me that Tom's shoes had donated to the local government, who then sold the shoes to a merchant who was selling them at this market. That means the local cobbler was basically out of work while the shoes were being supplied, and other shoe venders were losing out on sales, overall having a negative impact on the economy. On top of that all, Tom's shoes are very low quality and the pair they donate is even lower quality so within a few months they would wear out.
Yes, donating clothes really doesn't help any more (if it ever helped). There is tons of stuff coming in, much of which is low quality and it's competing with local tailors.
the unspoken permanent wrench in the gears lies in chaos theory. models always have some level of consolidation of reality that gets treated in blocks. While this has intuitive inaccuracies like rounding errors, edge cases, and such, we also know reality often shows emergent behavior from chaotic interactions in a way only understandable after it's actually happened. these could be erorrs that could completely break the models relevance
After observing the emergent behavior, we can often then incorporate it into the model by breaking up prior consolidations into more parts, but the fundamental problem still remains. This makes models for things that arent part of a relatively rapid feedback loop for model improvement (like climate change) to be very vulnerable unknowns. thats not to say they are completely useless, but it can very much take away the weight behind any specificity of the models results, and should open up a second conversation about the direction in which the model might be expected to fail.
Additionally, when creating models that involve human behavior you can appeal to game theory, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc but ultimately chaos will be in full force. now with AI it is going to become a factor amongst automation as well in a way it previously was not. there is no practical way to model how the weights of neural networks might act unexpectedly in various contexts.
all this to say models are not often that great at giving useful predictions as much as they are great at building foundations of understanding of relationships in complex/complicated and what "clean" situations might look like, which can then be taken into consideration of what reality is likely to look like and happen. this distinction is important because currently, automation tools and AI lack that final chaotic adjustment that astute humans are able to apply. Ai has gotten very good at making complicated models but it ultimately is, by design imo whether intentional or not, limited in the same way models themselves are.
that final adjustment to make real world decisions and have personal accountability is more rooted in beliefs/feelings than it is in model outputs, albeit the model outputs help to refine it.
Actually there's a lot of stuff you can compute and predict about chaotic systems, it's not like they're pure noise. Since practically anything most people actually find interesting falls squarely in the chaotic bracket, you have to think of workarounds... which I'd argue is most of science.
(eg. the solar system is technically chaotic, but we can still predict far ahead. Hashlife is a thing which you can even push back on ;-) . And we can predict weather a few days ahead at least)
i think its a war and the good side has an advantage so if we apply ourselves and fight the fight then ai for good for humanity will win out. if we allow fear to make us hesitant and avoid the fight while bad actors continue then they will win it.
as for a basis for this theory, i think being a good person is harder than a bad person (in laymans terms). therefor the long history of evolution of good and bad people together has had a greater competitive pressure on good people than bad ones thus forging 'stronger' people under that pressure. in practical everyday circumstances good people are bearing more on their mind and so there is a sort of competitive equity between the two groups, which is related to why good people had to evolve 'stronger' to keep up with that equity.
so in an even playing ground where raw skill is needed, i think the most skilled will usually be people coming from a long line of higher moral standards. the tactical advantages of psychopathy are, however, always a curveball
I remember a day, long ago now, when computers were going to take everyone’s jobs, even without AI/ML in the picture.
Folks are always scared of the incomprehensible. The real war going on right now is between those who understand AI well enough to make a new one, and those relegated to using whatever scraps they’re fed of the old ones.
Thankfully, you are 100% right - there are good people out there. Good people keep AI on the rails by doing good things for other people.
That is not what sandboxing solves. A good sandbox would inject credentials into provider API calls so that the model never sees credentials, but the provider is still going to see the transcript. Sandboxes do not require or imply that there is a local model. Sandboxes limit what the agent can access on the host machine as well as the network and public internet.
>Sandboxes limit what the agent can access on the host machine as well as the network and public internet.
this is exactly what I meant. I am presuming the danger is AI reacting to personal notes that it reads on your computer, like a diary, and you should not allow the tools to have access to those documents.
ah, okay - yeah kind of a 'shocked pikachu face' then. So maybe more of a PSA is needed that what you say to the model and your uploaded files is akin to speaking all the content out loud to the company hosting the model.
I dont really like this direction but it is what it is right now
Another way to interpret this is that they are legally presuming that you already have sandboxed their product and anything it sees or has access to is intentional.
Any failure to understand what it can access or what it has permission to see from the user's end is presumably not their problem. Regardless of what the user specifically asks of the tool.
are you aware that voting takes about an hour one time on one day - so whatever it is youre thinking we do 'instead', we can still do as well? of which you havent suggested anything other than to sell people bridges
The comment is meant to illustrate that I don't think their statement is different enough to contradict.
The lack of effort to vote is obvious. As is what happens when you vote out all of the incumbents.
It's not a solution, that is obvious. Mostly because it's not suggesting anything concrete, either.
My suggestion is quite a bit more concrete. It's grounded in reality. The level of organization required to vote out ALL incumbents, is better used actually solving the problem.
I wouldn't presume to present such a solution, as I am only me. I would happily suggest voting in specific people over voting out the incumbents, at the very least.
oh i think the disconnect is that the statement "vote out all incumbents" is much more of an expression of sentiment for individual consideration as a baseline and not an attempt to organize and control the vote to get exactly that output by treating voters like programmable robots, which is not democratic anyway
idk man youre pretty difficult to talk to, by making a bunch of assumptions under the guise of taking something literally. not even sure what i attributed to you, nor do you need to navigate the minds of others. its more just hearing the feeling being expressed and not assuming a large stance being taken with logistics and organization involved
Sports are an organized place we have developed as an environment for us to express our most basic and stupid instincts rather than repress them.
As with many environments, opportunists try to find ways to exploit it for self serving interests. People enjoy gambling, for example, and that leads to exploiters trying to rig the odds.
Since there is a lot of money involved, it is unsurprising that the control and organization of sports would be sought after by powers but ultimately the audience puts much more faith in the players to have an honest desire to compete than they do the establishments organizing the games to be well intentioned. And gambling is the release valve, where if you believe it to be rigged a certain way then you can bet on it so it can never be too obvious if it's happening
they have a plan to hand over responsibility, accountability, and work over to the AI while they collect their checks for doing nothing and they arent going to let a little thing like "the ai cant actually handle it" get in the way of that
hallucination is common language for these models at this point which describes a particular type of error where the models make shit up.
it is noticeable that the form of this particular error holds a similar shape to what is casually described as hallucinations, in that there is a generated content that often appears to blend naturally into the rest of the output but is false.
the term hallucination often invokes a caution that this particular type of error may be influential and believable and is particularly dangerous
be more honest in your interviews. i have always found my jobs this way. You want to work somewhere that sees you as a person first and an employee second - so when you get to the interview you should talk to them like they are a person first and an interviewer second. If the person you will be working under fails to match that energy then get outta there
too often the work involved in taking it to an organization level is written off by the doners, and / or taken advantage of by the org. but renting a building and hiring people to take calls, perform accounting, etc has real cost that cuts into donations but it is also an area of job creation. Those jobs created, imo, are incredibly important and when they are given to people in the donating country it turns into mostly just economic activity in the doner country run on donations with just whatever amount is leftover going to the actual aid. of which, without any outright corruption, people are always eager to spend that money to make the organization side of things better.. or invest it into the organization under the guise (genuine or not) of scaling the organization such that donating a bit less today leads to more donations tomorrow. and then it becomes like any other business mostly running on debt and the actual donations are like a material cost that is constantly pressured to be cut down to pay back debts
reply