I'm Jim Kleiber. I also go by Jimmy, Jimbo, James, Jimski, and many other derivations. I'm developing a martial art for an open heart. I went to UIUC for ECE and switched to Intercultural Communication...from computer language to human language...I still dabble in both :-) I care about this world and believe that communication technology has the power to bring us back together, as long as we remember our common humanity.
lol, I actually sang it (or tried to) to open my college commencement speech :-) Brutal for one sober person, probably more fun for a group of non-sober people :-D
I mean I think sometimes it reduces pain. But it can also increase pain? I've definitely stayed up later than I've wanted to, or got into a fight with someone because I paid more attention to the AI coding agent than them, or had it convince me that I had made deep scientific breakthroughs only later to tell me everything was obvious and maybe tautological.
I just think it's a very powerful and complex tool that can cause a huge range of feelings and outcomes.
It seems the author is instead arguing that we should say that AI is a destructive tool and we should not use it.
I was hoping the article would not label it purely good or bad, but 1) highlight that AI is not just a tool but a very powerful tool and 2) and therefore it very much matters how we all use it and how it uses us.
In this framing, we can see the things where it helps and hurts us and society and many levels at various intensities.
The article mostly just seemed to say how bad it was, and I don't think being critical of a new tool means to only see how it harms us but rather to see the potential full range of impacts.
Are CEOs outsourcing too much of their thinking to their employees?
I find I'm not thinking less per say, just thinking about different things. Maybe you could argue there are CEOs who get too far out of touch with the reality on the ground and should get more directly involved in the work. However, I don't know how well one could argue that the CEO should do all of the work.
I see at least the current iteration LLMs and harnesses as me managing and coordinating them and thinking differently, not less.
Fair point, just looked it up and it seems to be illegal to do that. But in my experience, many probably still do it, or people don't trust that hospitals will follow the law...it may be more of that latter part, not knowing whether they will or won't ask you for money, or whether they will or won't take your insurance. So I think that uncertainty can mean having to be prepared for it anyway.
Fair point. I also think the same group you're talking about is probably not thinking about going back home with just government benefits to sustain them. They probably are more focused on working in countries with higher wages and building big homes back home. I think it tends to be more wage driven than government benefit driven, but I could be wrong.
Yes, pouring money may not be a very efficient solution and graft can certainly happen. For me it's a combination of how much graft do we allow if we take the long perspective and see it shrinking over time (maybe we dont allow any, cold turkey)? And what are ways we can help change the environments that may not be directly tied to money? From my perspective, we often need (and graft) money the most when we don't trust ourselves and others to help us. So are there ways we can help build deeper relationships so money is not the only focus or way people think they can get help?
Perhaps. I think it's more about the passport ranking so one can travel and also the salary bump. But even if more of the other government services, try living in a country where if you get into a serious car accident you have to pay cash at the ER before they treat you. Scrambling to find multiple thousands of dollars in cash at 3am sometimes. (This happened to my friend in Kenya)
Im not sure if I can blame people for wanting to have more financial or medical security.
It might be. It also lets my loyalty go slowly by slowly. Monopolies work until they collapse.
If you can't tell, it frustrates me so much. I wonder how the internal culture of Uber changed when it went from almost zero interest rates to now trying to make lots of profit.
My friend said he realized Uber can just rely on a steady stream of people either growing up or getting laid off and trying to make a quick buck, so they can treat their drivers poorly as well.
I'm not sure what's happening, just know support may be a lot simpler and cheaper to address than nothing, or at least in the medium to long term, but maybe not?
Because I think we've been generous because we recognize the benefits that come to us for being so generous. Proper generosity recognizes that the other's well-being relates to our well-being.
For example, giving funding to USAID to try to stop the spread of Ebola helps people in DRC, Uganda, and other countries directly affected, but can also help the US not have Ebola spread here.
Helping Mexico improve their economy can help people in Mexico not immigrate to the US.
I believe our generosity also benefits us much more than we can see when our perspective collapses and we see life from fewer and fewer dimensions. And I think we can collapse into the "us vs them" mindset that so many others have collapsed into or we can go the other direction and realize it's "us with them" and then we look at generosity differently.
I wish they would spend some of that on the help/support function within their apps. Whenever I have a problem on Uber, it feels like a never-ending maze to figure out how to get any support, and I consider myself versed in navigating unseemly UI, I can only imagine how much it might frustrate people who struggle navigating apps.
Any idea why their help function seems to impenetrable and if AI might help with it?
> Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi have adopted a three-tiered duty structure for imports from outside the East Africa Customs Union under the terms of the Protocol on the Establishment of the East Africa Customs Union, which became fully operational in January 2010. Most finished products are subject to a 25% duty, while intermediate products face a 10% levy. Raw materials (excluding foodstuffs) and capital goods may still enter duty free. Imported goods are charged a value added tax (VAT) of 18% and a 15% withholding tax, which is not reclaimable. Combined, these taxes effectively charge a 33% tax on all foreign goods and services. Imports are also charged a 1.5% infrastructure tax to finance railway infrastructure development. [0]
"Effectively charge a 33% tax on all foreign goods and services." Not just Macbooks. I don't know if this is the final definitive tally of the tariffs but I believe almost everything has a high tariff, so people effectively pay 33% more for the same goods plus shipping. Fair, can't really get rid of shipping, but a 33% or even a 15% penalty on tools means people get worse tools. Computers, mobile phones, cars, motorcycle helmets, medicines (if imported perhaps?), hammers, fans, showers, whatever tool you might use that is a finished good coming from another country, you pay 15-33% or whatever more, so you get a lower quality product for the money you have. I just would prefer my people get the best deal on the best tools (that we as a country don't think we need to make for security reasons) so people can improve faster. Less smog, better roads, fewer things that break...would be quite nice at all levels.
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @jimkleiber Telegram: @jimkleiber Keybase: @jimkleiber