Interesting! To be fair, I only tried it once, I did not look at a distribution over several attempts, so I may have just gotten (un)lucky. I'd expect this example to be training case #1 though.
I like this concept of "vocational awe", and I do think it's why, for example, there is so much sexual and financial abuse in the movie, music and game industry: those people are willing to be treated poorly so they can work their craft - do the thing they love. Basically they are trading away good working conditions in exchange for actually doing work you like or find meaningful, the opposite of someone who does something they hate or find meaningless but pays a high salary and where you are treated really well.
I don't know how well this actually translates to AI, though. We all understand that AI art has a pretty low quality, but sometimes low quality is enough. If I want an image for my D&D character that only I and my DM will likely ever see, I am fine with a 7 cent AI-generated image, but I'm not willing to pay 150$ for an artist to do it - not that I don't value their time, I just don't value the image that much. Before AI this was the same, I'd just have used an image from Pinterest and thought "Well, this isn't exactly a good match, but I can't find anything better".
But I assume real illustrators do things like illustrations for children's books? I'd like to believe that those are still done by actual people, not AI.
> Most of the world has solved the worst of the problem by simply not allowing caller-ID spoofing and by blocking bad actors
I live in the Netherlands, and I get several spoofed crypto-scam calls every day. I have also stopped picking up the phone for numbers I don't recognize. My own telephone number has been used to call others for a while, so I would get tons of "sorry I was busy, what did you call about?" return calls from random people when clearly I had not called them at all.
As far as I know, the only reason spoofing is even possible, is so that call centers in other countries can pretend to be calling from a local number, which.. why is that even a feature?
This feels very much like an example of "this should be run by the government" rather than letting this be run by companies.
> As far as I know, the only reason spoofing is even possible, is so that call centers in other countries can pretend to be calling from a local number, which.. why is that even a feature?
It is very common for each individual phone in a call center to have a direct inward dial number, but when they dial out they want the main support contact number to be displayed so you can get routed appropriately and not harass their tech support employee.
I'm curious, is that a landline or a mobile number?
Because I have two mobile numbers the country to the right of you and have gotten perhaps one marketing/scam call in the last decade. And those numbers have been used for 2FA for plenty of websites so surely must have leaked by now.
I had an interview with Google about 10 years ago. Everyone said "Google doesn't ask brainteasers or leetcode-challenges any more".
The interview was literally nothing but back-to-back brainteasers and leetcode-challenges for 3 hours straight.
I didn't get the job even though I only failed to solve one problem, and looking back I think that the problem was in fact unsolvable and they wanted me to come to that conclusion rather than admit that I couldn't solve it in my head.
> Everyone said "Google doesn't ask brainteasers or leetcode-challenges any more"
Google, just like all other FAANG companies, uses a lot of Leetcode-style questions and there's no tendency for this to change so far. The thing that Google does is that they ban interview questions which were exposed on Leetcode, so they could've meant that you won't be given a question that is known to Leetcode crowds.
> looking back I think that the problem was in fact unsolvable
As for the unsolvable problem, this is weird, but when the company has tens of thousands of active interviewers, chances are that one of them will surely ask some bullshit question, and there is a very low chance that someone will ever let that interviewer know that they're not doing a good job. The lottery aspect always exists here.
Haven't encountered "marbles in an airplane"-style brainteasers, but leetcode challenges are definitely still the norm at Google and other big tech. Not sure who was claiming otherwise.
(Though personally I don’t think giving a truly unsolvable problem in an interview without warning that this may be unsolvable is a reasonable test of anything, but a cruel experiment)
> True, some readers become indignant at their own inability to follow prose of any complexity or to recognize words any more obscure than those they are accustomed to using when talking to their dogs.
I do think that there is value in using precise, obscure words to convey precise, obscure knowledge (as with Hart's pogonotrophy example).
However, if all critique is dismissed as the indignation of swine, then how will anyone holding that position ever be able to tell whether they are just a bad writer?
Hart suggests that they should critique themselves, or rely on the critiques of those who write in the same way as they do. I am a programmer though, not an author. But I know that only accepting reviews from those I consider accomplished enough, and ignoring reviews by others as if they were indignant at their own inability to comprehend my code, is a very dangerous path to walk.
I don't think I would dismiss all critique as the indignation of swine. Previously valid criticism came in the form of review, be it from peers or the establishment, and while there might be a broader conversation to be had regarding the current state of literary review some voices probably have merit, I'm not familiar enough to know which, but would welcome recommendations from anyone that happens to read this.
I suspect most are drowned out by indignant squealing.
Re: code. I want to address you twice.
1. "ignoring reviews by others as if they were indignant at their own inability to comprehend my code", yes because doing so means ignoring your manager (hah).
2. Code review is very difficult to get right, the question I ask myself is whether I trust the individual to approach the repo without prejudice to the method or the author, I would think the ignorant would be reluctant to post a review lest their ignorance be broadcast to the team.
> yes because doing so means ignoring your manager
Oh luckily I've been blessed with managers who don't code or do code reviews, so I lucked out there, haha.
But I'll admit that code review is actually not the best comparison, as my PRs don't get reviews from thousands of people from the public - only from other engineers. So I suppose that's actually an argument in favor of Hart.
Probabilistic: 1.968 s - 76% chance it lands on a 1.
Generation: 3.083 s - Equal split.