At least you guys made it into the sp500 today. Chin up.I only care because I am swamped so bad right now, and those dudes fuck me
At least you guys made it into the sp500 today. Chin up.I only care because I am swamped so bad right now, and those dudes fuck me
Yeah, I have a 24 year old I am working with. Not unskilled but his ability to communicate in English is terrible. Nobody understands a third of what he says.A big part of the problem is I can't communicate with them. Chinese engineers I have no problem working with
We pay our SOC 2nd shift a shift differential of around 20%. Good wage but Night shift loses big on face time with senior leadership and networking goes a long way with advancement.Okay so son has job offer that is excellent experience and in good location. 75k. He has second interview tomorrow with company on his current base. He's expecting them to offer 85k. Second job is night shift and he feels less better experience. Sucky location. ( He knows current contractors doing the work so why he thinks he knows what to expect.) We talked about it and think he should make counter offer of 90k. What if they ask him what the other job is offering him. How would you suggest to reply to that. Any other suggestions on how to handle the situation?
For anyone that got laid off this year: jobs do actually exist, they just suck to find.
My last day of work at my previous company was Dec 1st last year, and it took all the way until today to finally get an offer that wasn't an offensive lowball for an awful helpdesk position with a gussied up 'admin' title.
Government-adjacent non-profit place so the insurance is stellar, and close to a 50% raise makes this nearly year long gap of boredom and mental damage from increasing imposter syndrome kinda worth it.
Congrats
For anyone that got laid off this year: jobs do actually exist, they just suck to find.
My last day of work at my previous company was Dec 1st last year, and it took all the way until today to finally get an offer that wasn't an offensive lowball for an awful helpdesk position with a gussied up 'admin' title.
Government-adjacent non-profit place so the insurance is stellar, and close to a 50% raise makes this nearly year long gap of boredom and mental damage from increasing imposter syndrome kinda worth it.
Thanks bro, this is the longest period in my life since being a teenager that I've not had a job and it was definitely getting....weird lol
I feel that. I don't look forward to if/when that day comes. I've had a job (often 2-3) since I was 16, even if it was part time in HS/college, never been unemployed.
"AI" as in LLMs don't "analyze" anything, which is why they're notoriously bad at math without adding additional hacks to the input/output layers of the application. The model just tries to fit a pattern it's seen in other texts, to predict the next word that it thinks you want to hear based on the human feedback it received during the tuning phase. That sometimes you get something that looks like analysis is incidental, it is just telling you what it thinks you want you to hear (which is often true, but often isn't.) Also, the data in the training set is just based on stuff that was scraped from the internet anyway.Is there any difference in veracity between these two statements?
1. I found it on the internet, it must be true.
2. An AI analyzed it and said it was true.
If you were asked this for a job interview, what would you say?
"AI" as in LLMs don't "analyze" anything, which is why they're notoriously bad at math without adding additional hacks to the input/output layers of the application. The model just tries to fit a pattern it's seen in other texts, to predict the next word that it thinks you want to hear based on the human feedback it received during the tuning phase. That sometimes you get something that looks like analysis is incidental, it is just telling you what it thinks you want you to hear (which is often true, but often isn't.) Also, the data in the training set is just based on stuff that was scraped from the internet anyway.
Finding multiple independent sources of corroborating evidence on the internet is likely more accurate than AI output.
Perplexity and MS Copilot Pro do a pretty good annotating their sources. But again, it's still just basically googling for you, or binging for you *shudder.*Can the output of an AI literally ever be considered proof or evidence of anything by itself? I would argue no, never, the output might indeed be true or a fact, but I think what most people don't understand yet about AI is that without independent corroboration of whatever the output was it's no better than a random "I'm feeling lucky" google search. It's predictive like you said and what it predicts, even when it's not hallucinating might still be completely wrong if it's LLM is full of erroneous data or it's data just isn't rich enough to predict the correct edge case.
I recently tried using some Image to Video tools with some family photos, the best one I found by far was Kling.AI but it invariably turns every photo I fed it into Asian people. It's pretty cool tech but it really shows how input biases lead to output biases and the output bias isn't just a side effect, it's an inescapable feature of the current tech.
It's decent for giving you a decent base for writing ad copy and such to fine tune. But it's sucks the balls for knowledge.Perplexity and MS Copilot Pro do a pretty good annotating their sources. But again, it's still just basically googling for you, or binging for you *shudder.*
ChatGPT and Claude have gotten really good at HTML, Javascript, Python, etc, as in they can do anything an average 2-3rd year CS student can do, but do it in seconds. Otherwise, I find them no better than Wikipedia, and often much worse, for research. But they do have a neat natural language style interface for querying ideas, even if the information isn't accurate, it can give you ideas on things to go searching for.
I trust the Internet first. This is just based on how often I've found AI wrong in answering questions or writing code for UEFI.Is there any difference in veracity between these two statements?
1. I found it on the internet, it must be true.
2. An AI analyzed it and said it was true.
If you were asked this for a job interview, what would you say?