At this point would I be outsourcing my knowledge work or would I be entering self-exile?

> There are personality traits inherent to successful CEO's that are in-born.

The problem with your point of view is that "Love of cocaine" is one of them, it's near the top, and you'll never acknowledge the fact.

> > There are personality traits inherent to successful CEO's that are in-born.

> The problem with your point of view is that "Love of cocaine" is one of them, it's near the top, and you'll never acknowledge the fact.

I don't get why one can't easily acknowledge the slightly weaker statement that traits that are inherent to successful CEOs might be positively correlated to being prone to a love for cocaine (which says nothing about any causality).

This is the problem. You’re thinking academic hypothesis and I’m thinking historical fact.

We already handle all of that, comrade. Every corner case floating around your brain was floating around someone else's brain a long time ago. Most of this is covered in high school in the US, and it's all enforced by volunteers from across the political spectrum.

Our documented examples of voter fraud come from a time when in-person voting was the only option, again something we teach in school, while the modern concerns from security professionals focus almost entirely on electronic voting machines.

“How can you tell I’m 13?” from username H|t13r

Interesting to think about the cost of training a LLM to understand that it’s operating within an unknown number of larger contexts versus sending that quote to an edgy intern.

An interesting aspect of speaking with republican family members is that they assume democrats are monolithic and will revert to that assumption once enough time has passed. Like, unable to process being told that nobody in the room watches CNN or likes the Clintons.

I think conservative's brains are wired differently, and there's studies that back that up. They tend to lack empathy, which implies they can't walk in other people's shoes so therefor their assumptions about others are based upon how they themselves think.

I don't write that to demean them, I'd like it if it wasn't so -- this comment is in no way intended to be deragotory.

That said, I think this substantiates the notion that with conservatives "every accusation is a confession", because they can only see the world through their eyes they assume everybody else thinks like them.

I'm of the mind that Rupert Murdoch just found the right way to shout at people who grew up in a certain environment.

> We didn't need to genetically modify flies [...]

"Involve transgenics" is broad enough cover the intern doing literature reviews on related subjects. The discovery process on an unfamiliar domain is a jargon/term of art minefield, and the phrases that fly past me turn in to shibboleths.

> The only "fix" is to make an AI smart enough that it can understand context for each item, which is a tall order.

Impossible as you said. Context isn’t static, it’s continuous, analog, and a conglomeration of viewpoints.

AI cannot create useful context for itself because it is a machine with no desires. It doesn’t have a point of view, it has historical records. It moves forward in time by walking backwards (if that makes sense?)

> I can see a doctor or specialist usually within a week.

What kind of Northern Exposure bullshit is this?

> They like the fancy plan that covers their doctor

The fancy plan.

Yeah, because it covers all the doctors. It is literally the same as saying you will pay any price. It is a luxury good.

> How would they do that?

Let me introduce you to the phrase "I don't see a mechanism."

>Let me introduce you to the phrase "I don't see a mechanism."

I'm not familiar with this phrase, but I think I did a good job citing a comparable example in my original post.

> Those methods include covert measures to ensure NSA control over setting of international encryption standards, the use of supercomputers to break encryption with "brute force",

Things that definitely don't happen. Those same encryption standards are used by the US military, and the international cryptography community can pretty readily rule out keyed backdoors.

The thought that supercomputers could break Internet encryption by brute force is laughable. One would have to be innumerate to think such a thing.