Writer, teacher, data driven humanist. Tech geek, model builder, mini-painter, reader. He/Him.

  • 7 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle








  • Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.

    So you’re saying the ends are what is important, not the reason the action was taken?

    To me, there’s an important philosophical question here – if the right action (or a demonstrably good action) is taken, does it matter why? I think it does.

    Let’s say my neighbor doesn’t maintain their property – they don’t mow or clean the landscaping. I decide to do this for them on my own, with their permission of course. There is a difference if I’m doing this to be a good neighbor, as opposed to making sure the neighborhood looks good because I’m selling my house. My actions are the same in both cases, as are the effects and side effects – only the motivation differs. Therefore that motivation deserves to be interrogated and explored.

    If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.

    I don’t see myself as a pessimist, but I’ll admit this observation is probably correct.


  • Just writing a cheque to the charity for $43k would have done as much or more, but since their real goal is goosing sales numbers not donating to charity that would run counter to their goal.

    This – it’s virtue-signalling to raise sales numbers. If I make a big public statement about my charitable giving, it’s seen very differently than when a big corporation does it.

    Another question I have: is anyone changing their purchasing choices because of this? Would you choose a Pepsi fountain drink or a Gatorade instead of a bottle of Coke just because of this? Or add a share size Snickers bar to your gas purchase which you wouldn’t otherwise?









  • Fair point, and thank you. Let me clarify a bit.

    It wasn’t my intention to say ChatGPT isn’t helpful. I’ve heard stories of people using it to great effect, but I’ve also heard stories of people who had it return the same non-solutions they had already found and dismissed. Just like any tool, actually…

    I was just pointing out that it is functionally similar to scanning SO, tech docs, Slashdot, Reddit, and other sources looking for an answer to our question. ChatGPT doesn’t have a magical source of knowledge that we collectively also do not have – it just has speed and a lot processing power. We all still have to verify the answers it gives, just like we would anything from SO.

    My last sentence was rushed, not 100% accurate, and shows some of my prejudices about ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT works best when it is treated like a rubber duck – give it your problem, ask it for input, but then use that as a prompt to spur your own learning and further discovery. Don’t use it to replace your own thinking and learning.


  • There was a story once that said if you put an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters, they would eventually produce the works of William Shakespeare.

    So far, the Internet has not shown that to be true. Example: Twitter.

    Now we have an artificial monkey remixing all of that, at our request, and we’re trying to find something resembling Hamlet’s Soliloquy in what it tells us. What it gives you is meaningless unless you interpret it in a way that works for you – how do you know the answer is correct if you don’t test it? In other words, you have to ensure the answers it gives are what you are looking for.

    In that scenario, it’s just a big expensive rubber duck you are using to debug your work.