upvote

points

by jipl1041 days ago |
comments
upvoteby applicative1 days ago|
next
[-]
I would have thought so too, a priori, but at this point three former colleagues are working for Anthropic; the most extraordinary case, one of the brainiest people I have known, was announced this week.
reply
upvoteby deadbabe1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Starbucks employs orders of magnitude more philosophers than any AI labs.
reply
upvoteby 1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby fearmerchant1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Ok, you got me. It took me a minute.
reply
upvoteby jayd161 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If pay, hours, benefits, and type of work mean nothing to you, then maybe this is an apt point.
reply
upvoteby appreciatorBus1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
If service to others and to society mean anything to you, working in Starbucks or any fast food job will teach you more about humanity and human society than most college grads learn from a humanities degree.
reply
upvoteby OtherShrezzing1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It’s difficult to articulate the tedium and monotony of a Starbucks gig. There’s so little intellectual stimulation available in that setting. If you managed to learn more from your fast food than your humanities degree, then I think that’s on you for not paying attention at college (perhaps because you were exhausted from your job?).
reply
upvoteby ElProlactin1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> If you managed to learn more from your fast food than your humanities degree...

It's not about learning "more". It's that earning a degree is an academic undertaking whereas working at a coffee shop is "real life".

There is no need to treat one as more or less valuable/useful than the other. They're just different kinds of human experiences. Learning is possible from both.

reply
upvoteby appreciatorBus18 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If you find that sort of work, tedious and monotonous, then I think that says more about you than the job. I’ve been a janitor, a barista and a software developer, and they all are fascinating and fulfilling in different ways. Of course if purely measuring on status, comfort and financial renumeration software dev currently beats them all handily, but to imagine there is nothing you could learn, nothing interesting, nothing fulfilling in other types of work is pretty arrogant. The lefties might even call it privileged.
reply
upvoteby casey21 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby pohl1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
But will it help those baristas pay off the student loans that paid for their philosophy degrees?
reply
upvoteby quixoticaxolotl1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Helping a mega-corporation make an extra buck is not "service to society".

If you meant doing a service job at a small business, where you can have real ownership over how it treats its customers, I would agree with you.

reply
upvoteby appreciatorBus18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The mega corp is making 3.98% profit. Sure you could focus all your time at Starbucks on that 3.98%, but most of us would focus on the other 96% which is helping customers.
reply
upvoteby airstrike1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
and famously doesn't require a degree
reply
upvoteby sleepybrett1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
... and why would they train for a job where everything they say that seeks to curtail expansion would be ignored.
reply
upvoteby datakan1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
If the AI is digesting all the philosophy material ever published then why do they need philosophers?
reply
upvoteby The_Blade1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
knowing all the philosophy every published is not being a philosopher

there was literature about 15 years or so ago stating Philosophy as being an uncommonly lucrative course of study, in part citing Reid Hoffman

it is a way of thinking

reply
upvoteby bix61 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Philosopher vs MBA. Everyone dogs on MBAs.

Philosophy can have strong mid career earnings especially if you go into law. Or get lucky like Reid did.

reply
upvoteby antonvs1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> knowing all the philosophy every published is not being a philosopher

Debatable. We may need to ask a philosopher.

reply
upvoteby genxy1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
That is not what AI is. AI is a powerful tool, a semiautonomous set of wood working tools that still need a master craftsperson to use. You need the tool+genius to drive it. Everyone wants to shoot down AI but they think AI will do everything. Being proud of a creation where someone did style transfer between spongebob and Rembrandt and they think they made art. About as responsible for actual art as just downloading images from google.
reply
upvoteby tavavex1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Precision tools raise the ceiling. AI mostly just raises the floor. Ease of use is a focus point for all AI labs and it's what they're constantly trying to improve. Yes, an expert can juice these models for all they've got, but an average Joe today is probably getting better results than the best power users had a year ago. Extrapolate this a bit and ask yourself if businesses will ever want to pay your geniuses and craftspeople a professional's wage if they could get 'good enough' results from any desperate minimum wage worker, or even by doing the work themselves.
reply
upvoteby applicative1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It’s actually pretty bad at it. I think there just isn’t enough literature to get a good effect from the LLM approach. Good luck with verifiable rewards when the target discourse is effectively pure self-criticism. Maybe ‘disputable rewards’ …

I have found that with proper framing I can get good help from Claude and ChatGPT on questions of translation of haute German philosophy and, to my amazement, Ancient Greek. An immediate ‘translate this passage’ request is a cataclysmic disaster. The nexus of sentences differs from other forms of discourse.

reply
upvoteby yepyoukno1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Philosophy is a living process of integrating ideas. Classical materials are the whetstone upon which the mind is sharpened. Unlike history, where literal established accounts are ideal, in philosophy one is expected to view today (or the future) through the lens of contextual discourse.

While there is “no right answer” understanding what the issues are and how the discussion plays out is relevant.

reply
upvoteby ButlerianJihad1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I believe that you mean “whetstone”.
reply