steel-man means trying to interpret someone's argument in the most favorable light rather than arguing against a weaker interpretation. It does not mean making up a different argument for them that you like better.
No. What you describe is closer to “giving the benefit of the doubt”. “Straw manning” was always inventing reasons that are easy to refute, and steel manning has always meant its opposite
Exchanging money for something implies you believe it has a monetary value. That is the opposite of thinking something is too important to have a monetary value.
That's not p hacking. That's just the nature of p values. P hacking is when you do things to make a particular experiment more likely to show as a success.
Why do you think senior managers would replace themselves if they could? Given the choice between saving a company and giving a senior manager slightly more money or power, the senior manager will always win.
The ultimate authority in any public company is the board.
The majority of employees will never have to think about it, but everyone from the CEO down is ultimately hired at their discretion.
To see how things normally operate read up on the OpenAI drama. If Sam Altman wasn't as politically savvy as he was the board would have fired him in a Friday announcement and by Monday a new CEO would have been in charge.
And boards are largely made up of senior management of other companies, scratching each other's backs.
If it ever became clear that an LLM or other AI of some sort could genuinely replace senior management, I guarantee you'd see two things:
1) The price for access to that level of AI (assuming it wasn't possible with an open model on commodity hardware, which seems like a safe assumption for the foreseeable future) would quickly rise to be merely competitive with the cost of hiring senior management.
2) Boards would (nearly) all quickly agree that the human factor is very important, and regardless of what statistics you might have seen on the decisions made by these AIs in completely fabricated scenarios, or even a few _obviously_ rigged "real-life tests", there's no way these so-called "AIs" could ever really replace a human where it matters (ie, at the senior management level).
>And boards are largely made up of senior management of other companies, scratching each other's backs.
My experience with boards is that everyone on them would rather be doing something else. If they could offload 90% of their work to AI they would.
I know I did when I was a secretary of (several) boards and used a stt model + Claude to write minutes and agendas for the meetings I was presiding over.
Everyone rather enjoyed having a full and (near) real time overview of everything that had been said over the last three years.
I'm still hoping someone would come up with a good diarization model so we can have in person board meetings with as good transcripts as the zoom ones.
> Boards would (nearly) all quickly agree that the human factor is very important, and regardless of what statistics you might have seen on the decisions made by these AIs in completely fabricated scenarios, or even a few _obviously_ rigged "real-life tests", there's no way these so-called "AIs" could ever really replace a human where it matters (ie, at the senior management level).
Exactly how AI researchers have felt since they AI started doing better than humans in the first tasks. From the ridiculous stat that more chess champions have been disqualified for using AI than we have chess champions. Right now in every chess tournament everyone is "fighting" TWO chess opponents. Their actual opponent ... and an AI chess player (and yes, it's an AI now, IBM and their "not-quite-AI" program is out). If they come even remotely close to beating the AI player, on a move by move basis, they are disqualified and the match is halted.
Humans aren't going to play fair in competing with AIs.
Think roughly L7-L10 at Google, M2-D2 at Meta, 66-70 at Microsoft, etc. People that make "law partner" money but are not C-level executives mentioned in SEC filings.
Decisions would be made 1-2 levels up, so they would not be replacing themselves.
Doing `html('<div>Hello {name}</div>')` would be possible. I have a system that's based on it. Two issues:
- No tooling in Python will do anything with the string, so DX suffers.
- Evaluating the variable requires frame evaluation, which is...problematic.
You could do `html(f'<div>Hello {name}</div>')` and get f-string coding assistance. But you'd also get immediate evaluation. There's nothing the `html` function can do with the `{name}` part.
If you do that, people outside the package can also do Username(x) conversions instead of calling NewUsername. Making value package private means that you can only set it from outside the package using provided functionality.
I don't think most people make a special trip just to get gas. It's usually a quick added stop along the way of another trip, which is less of a nuisance than having to make two small walks to move and plug/unplug your car.
The GP was responding to a point about the closure of gas stations accelerating the decline of ICE vehicles. If all the stations near where you normally travel close, then you are forced to make a special trip to fill up.
The last gas stations standing won't be in remote areas far from everything else. They'll be in heavily trafficked areas that everybody goes to regularly, particularly near grocery stores.
Even if like 80% of gas stations close, the remaining 20% will be situated along major transportation arteries. I expect there will be a gas station somewhere along someone's regular weekly driving route for all but the most remote dwellers.
And in those cases plugging in your EV amounts to no net gain or loss, but there absolutely are people who already have to make a dedicated trip to the gas station because their own town where they do their shopping simply doesn't have one.
No, we're not. We're talking about Norway as a whole, a country where for the vast majority of people, "urban centers" are few and far between. With an anecdote that highlights that even in urban setting there are areas where it's apparently easier to drive an EV than ICE.
They show the DFA for it on the site, it's 3 states. There's a starting state for the first . and then two states that transition back and forth between whether z was the last character or not.
I think what's actually happening here is that they're doing the intersection on the DFAs and then producing a regex from the resulting DFA. The construction of a regex from a DFA is where things get ugly and weird.
reply