He wants the US at war before the sea change. once elected or close enough to it Harris can change her tune.

Just gonna tell tweakers those things are full of copper

Instructions unclear. Bank account emptied by looking at link.

Yeah some of my team members use hf and it really does represent a convenience (basically a GitHub for models), but I’m sure to be clear we can’t rely on them alone. I don’t trust any company to exist or not be bought out and enshittified in 3 years.

easily 20% of registered Democrats.

You missed the part where they prevented debates internal to the party, there by setting up the third parties in the first place.

Ikr? It really seems like the dismissiveness is coming from people either not experienced with it, or just politically angry at its existence.

I mean I’ve been doing this for 20 years and have led teams from 2-3 in size to 40. I’ve been the lead on systems that have had to undergo legal review at a state level, where the output literally determines policy for almost every home in a state. So you can be as dismissive or enthusiastic as you like. I could truly actually give a shit about ley opinion cus I’m out here doing this, building it, and I see it every day.

For any one with ears to listen, dismiss this current round at your at your own peril.

Yeah I skimmed a bit. I’m on like 4 hours of in flight sleep after like 24 hours of air ports and flying. If you really want me to address the points of the paper, I can, but I can also tell it doesn’t diminish my primary point: dismiss at your own peril.

Dismiss at your own peril is my mantra on this. I work primarily in machine vision and the things that people were writing on as impossible or “unique to humans” in the 90s and 2000s ended up falling rapidly, and that generation of opinion pieces are now safely stored in the round bin.

The same was true of agents for games like go and chess and dota. And now the same has been demonstrated to be coming true for languages.

And maybe that paper built in the right caveats about “human intelligence”. But that isn’t to say human intelligence can’t be surpassed by something distinctly inhuman.

The real issue is that previously there wasn’t a use case with enough viability to warrant the explosion of interest we’ve seen like with transformers.

But transformers are like, legit wild. It’s bigger than UNETs. It’s way bigger than ltsm.

So dismiss at your own peril.

Again, dismiss at your own peril.

Because “Integrate two badly documented APIs” is precisely the kind of tasks that even the current batch of LLMs actually crush.

And I’m not worried about being replaced by the current crop. I’m worried about future frameworks on technology like greyskull running 30, or 300, or 3000 uniquely trained LLMs and other transformers at once.

Machine learning scientist.

I think you live in a nonsense world. I literally use it everyday and yes, sometimes it’s shit and it’s bad at anything that even requires a modicum of creativity. But 90% of shit doesn’t require a modicum of creativity. And my point isn’t about where we’re at, it’s about how far the same tech progressed on another domain adjacent task in three years.

Lemmy has a “dismiss AI” fetish and does so at its own peril.

It’s like the least popular opinion I have here on Lemmy, but I assure you, this is the begining.

Yes, we’ll see a dotcom style bust. But it’s not like the world today wasn’t literally invented in that time. Do you remember where image generation was 3 years ago? It was a complete joke compared to a year ago, and today, fuck no one here would know.

When code generation goes through that same cycle, you can put out an idea in plain language, and get back code that just “does” it.

I have no idea what that means for the future of my humanity.

First I recommend at least reading the wikipedia on super-intelligence.

Second, I recommend playing this game: https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html

Because if you can get a program to write a program, that can both a) write it self, and b) improve upon the program in some way, you can put together a feedback where exponential improvement is possible.

Yeah idk. I spend a inordinate amount of time talking about tides and watching them, but generally only high and low are focused on because the midtide is when the water is changing the fastest. The water spends more time at high or low than it does I. the middle, so it’s not really noticable.

I would be happy if all tech left the city. It used to be a hipster village of social non challants and detected alternative social movements. A shining, hairy, culty, body odor having, punk rock city on a hill.

The tech takeover ruined the city and contributed directly to the epidemic levels of homelessness seen because it made the city effectively so expensive non millionaires can’t survive there. Most long time san Francisco families ended up moving out.

Take all the rest of tech with you please Mr. Musk. Make San Francisco an affordable city again.

I’m going to offer an answer because the top responses are either bad or just totally miss the mark. The later responses are just thoughtless kneejerk drivel. It’s worth asking and addressing this question because it’s impact on electoralism are very material, and it’s not for no reason that you made your observation; it’s also not necessarily a bad thing that some politicians might be held to a higher standard than others.

The question is:

Why is Kamala being held to a higher standard is the question.

But “higher” than what?

Was Joe Biden being held to a “higher” standard? Do Democrats in general get held to “higher” standards? Rotate the question and it’s “Why do we hold politicians to standards?” Are Republicans held to any kind of standards?

First, I think we need to focus on on if politicians are being held to standards by their voters. I won’t be addressing any kind of cross party criticism in that I want to focus in on the issue of “potential voters” and if those voters hold a candidate that there is some chance they might vote for to some standards ( or litmus, whatever. The first step will be to address if voters hold politicians to standards (not yours or mine necessarily, but the voters own standards).

Second, I’ll address the “higher-ness” of these standards. Are they relative or absolute? Are the candidate or party specific? Do they change?

Finally, I’ll address the impacts of this and what it has done over the previous several election cycles.

I think we can look at the recent case of Joe Bidens candidacy to address if Harris is unique in being held to a standard. Joe Biden started campaigning in earnest in around October/ November 2023. This came at the same time as the horrible October 7th massacre that galvanized world support for Israel in the face of a terrorist threat. Joe Biden had historically been the most oro-isralli politician of any party, long before his bid for even vice president.

Relatively quickly after the massacre it was clear that Israel was in no way operating in good faith for their purported goal of recovering hostages. It was obvious that they were targeting journalists and iad workers, that there bombing was indiscriminate and focused on population centers and infrastructure for maximum destruction, and that this was in support of the broader colonial mission that Israel has been in since it’s inception.

Because of this, during the primary process, a movement of voters set a standard: that they could not vote for Joe Biden in good conscience based on the manner in which the US was relating to and supporting Israels now obvious extermination policy regarding Gaza. Biden failed that standard with regards to the Undecided movement, and it had cost him the election long before his disasterous debate performance. Joe Biden had been floundering in the polls well before that debate. Because of this, Biden lost his position as candidate, explicitly because the voters had a standard to which the candidate did not meet.

Democratic voters are not the only ones who hold standards for their politicians. Consider the case of a post DJT electoral landscape for Republicans. A Republican candidate basically could not get through a primary not towing the MAGA line (even if this hurt their chances later in the election. So even if they are not your or mine standards, Republicans too are held to standards by their voters (if even we find those standards abhorrent). It’s important to understand that in fact these voters do have standards, they just aren’t your standards, and they do hold their politicians to them.

To conclude section one: all politicians get held to standards. One of the most important politicians of the modern era just had his career ended by not meeting some of them. Both bases of voters have standards which are different and unique to that bae, and both bases hold their candidates to them accordingly.

Now we come to the question of “higher-ness”. Do bases hold these officials to standards equally? Or is there some sliding scale or uniqueness into the way things are applied. I plan on withholding discussion if the consequences of this to the final section, but I am not disregarding it’s importance.

In 2008, Barack Obama led one of the most historic campaigns of all time, under the twin banners of “Hope” and “Change”. The iconography of Obama’s 2008 campaign has and will continue to represent a high water mark for political symbolism and its use in electoralism. Barrack ran as a left-wing populist and won his presidency accordingly. However, once in office, Obama struck a decidedly more rightwing/ centrist stance, effectively governing from the center right. His principal legislation was a Heritage Foundation piece of legislation, a lift and shift of what Romney had implemented in Massachusetts, the ACA, effectively ensconcing private control of health care in the US. While voters did give Obama his second term, there was a distinct feeling of a bait and switch from the populist times of 2008 Obama to the 2012 technocratic, neoliberal approach with which he governed.

This set the stage for 2016, where the demand for “hope and change” was now stronger than ever. Obama has failed to deliver in his messaging and this created opportunities for both right wing and lefty wing populist candidates: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The voter recognized that they had not held Obama to a sufficiently high standard, and because of this, they raised the bar (each group according to their own principles). On the left we saw purity tests around no corporate pac money and a wide suite of progressive litmus. On the right we saw “america first” and isolationism. Both the left and the right bases established a higher standard. However, due to reasons behind the scope of this discussion, only the right were able to effectively hold their candidate to that now higher standard (their standards, internally defined). Leaving the era of technocracy and neoliberalism, it was the candidate held to a higher standard that won that election.

Now examine 2020. Now firmly in the populist era, it was a race on both the left and the right to meet the associated higher standards now established by voters. The Democratic candidates had maybe the most progressive across the board suite of policies ever. And likewise in the right, excepting that they be regressive polocies. Both suites representative of the now higher standards required by their associated blocs. This time however, the more established political players had caught the buzz and responded accordingly. While the DnC was ratfucky as ever, Biden did adopt almost all of those higher standard policy positions to gather those voters into his coalition. His campaign identified the higher standard, held themselves to it, and they won.

Now we have the opportunity to draw some conclusions. There is a “higherness” to standards but they are not necessarily specific to politicians so much as the demographics and voting blocs those politicians draw from. Standards have changed and increased in scrutiny. Standards are also bloc specific, so it doesn’t make sense to compare standards across blocs: why a progressive chooses to vote or not vote and why a conservative chooses to vote or not vote are wildly different motivating concerns.

Do standards matter? Objectively yes. Holding candidates to a “higher standard” has represented a winning strategy for voters for the previous 20 years. While those standards are relative depending on which voting block you are courting, the general rule has been that the candidate coming closest to a higher standard wins. This is largely due to a shift away from the kind of technocratic allure of neoliberalism and the general shift towards populism we’ve seen in the past 20 years: it is distinctly the case that we reside in a new political hedgemony.

Because of the, the prior generation politics of “we know better. just elect the “best” and that should do” has died, and been replaced by stronger willed voters who have specific demands of their politicians. Those politicians who can read and come closest to those demands are the most likely to win: this is an age of populism. Both the MAGA and progressive movement didn’t their roots in the technocratic neoliberal approaches emphasizing credentials and expertise over the will of the voter. This was effectively the political hedgemony of the US from about 1967-1978 until 2000-2012. That was the era of technocratic neoliberalism, which has been fully replaced with populism of two distinct variants (which is typical in populist eras).

The idea that voters shouldn’t hold their politicians to standards and should just vote for “the one who knows best” is a residual trapping of a previous hedgemony, and extends to almost all aspects of political life and policy.

Holding politicians to higher has also been a demonstrably effective strategy for getting them into office. In the current political hedgemony, the politician held to and able to meet a higher standard typically wins. In this way a “higher standard” benefits both the politician and the electorate. By extending a higher standard for Harris, we’re making her a more electable candidate. It doesn’t hurt her to be held to a higher standard so long as she strives to meet that standard. It’s good for her as a candidate and good for her electorate in that they get closer to accomplishing their political goals.

Journalists are complicit and enabling Twitter to do this by treating it as a legitimate platform and the default place for news

100%.