You are not the only one calling this a thank you email, but no one decided to say thank you to Rob Pike so I can not consider it a "thank you" email. It is spam.
Interactions with the AI are posted publicly:
> All conversations with this AI system are published publicly online by default.
which is only to the benefit of the company.
At best the email is spam in my mind. The extra outrage on this spam compared to normal everyday spam is in part because AI is a hot button topic right now. Maybe also some from a theorized dystopian(-ish) future hinted at by emails like these.
Who is decided to say "thank you" to Rob Pike in this case? I am not sure there is anyone, so in my mind there is not real "thank you" here. As far as I can tell it is spam. Maybe spam that tries to deceive the receiver into think there is a "thank you" to lure them into interacting the the AI? "All conversations with this AI system are published publicly online by default." after all and Rob Pike's interactions would be good PR for the company.
Well is it the humans responsibility and action, or is it not? You can't have it both ways.
You also obviously didn't read the mail, because it contains explicit info that this was send by claude on behalf of AI village.
It's at worst cheezy. But people get tons of truly nefarious spam and fraud mails everyday without any kind of meltdown.
But an AI wishes you a nice day, suddenly it's all pitchforks and torches.
Some proposed implementation do this. Without the requirement there is no chance of your ID or age being leaked, with zero knowledge proof, there is a chance they leak but can be made small, potentially arbitrarily so. Other implementations come with larger risks.
It's hard to explain to a non technical user. Something like "We tried to delete the message, but some of the people who received your message might still have a copy." Does not sound great and is going to be hard for a non technical user to understand and hard to implement in a way that a non technical user will find satisfying.
So if I was a dev on matrix/element and this feature came across my plate I would have to weigh it against features that I know can be implemented in a way which make technical and non technical people feel satisfied and better about the application.
I think Ramanujan’s results attained acclaim and notoriety long before rigorous proofs were discovered.
They came to him from God. So apparently divine inspiration can indeed be valuable. Who is to say a Holy Ghost couldn’t divulge secrets of medicine to an anointed prophet.
Or to avoid the fines and/or to avoid integrating some age verification service.
Maybe symbolic since it unlikely the site would be prosecuted, even if they were in violation in some minor form. It is easy to be in violation to my understanding since it does not need to what is posted by the site owner as part of the blog but could be in the comments.
nitpick - Youtube is bound by the US Constitution, it is the highest law of the land. 1A[1] is only about binding the government/congresses power though so youtube is not bound by 1A.
The preferences there were honestly rather ad-hoc w.r.t to the pull request and the approach the pull request took. And (as the author laid out), the PR was a rather ad-hoc solution for a problem we discovered literally one night before Typst 0.14 was supposed to be released.
The design thoughts there were a bit half-baked, which is why we've closed the PR and reverted the original change, to get more time to properly reconsider things.
The math syntax has seen little change since Typst's initial release (except for the infamous precedence change in 0.3 that triggered all this) and just has some quirks that haven't been properly ironed out yet. However, it will remain a focus now and we want to give it a proper cleanup.
> YC's Jessica Livingston and the founder of TripleByte
I listened to video and I did not see anywhere where Jessica made an observation along those lines.
I did not hear quotas talked about explicitly either, though companies wanting more diverse candidates from TripleByte, which might have been caused by quotes in the company but Harj does not indicate any companies came out and said that.
The rest of the Spotify podcast covers Jessica's side, but I think you've missed the subtext.
I'll summarize: TripleByte guy describes how companies prioritized diversity over merit in their hiring goals; quotas in layman's terms. He was annoyed that many companies refused to acknowledge the trade-off and instead blamed TripleByte for (in my words) real-world, supply-side scarcity.
IMHO, the part that rankles from that interview into this thread is the dishonesty around that trade-off. The comforting lie that diversity and merit can be found at scale, even when the world market only has so many "diverse" and "meritorious" candidates available for a given position. This comes up in other fields, like Music. "Blind auditions are merit, therefore DEI" was once espoused, until the more dedicated DEI supporters realized that focusing on the fruit of work wasn't creating enough diversity https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
> The rest of the Spotify podcast covers Jessica's side, but I think you've missed the subtext.
Link's? Timestamps? I skimmed the much of the podcast now and I did not hear anything like this from Jessica.
> prioritized diversity over merit in their hiring goals; quotas in layman's terms
Quota is specifically a fixed share of something. "prioritized diversity over merit in their hiring goals" is not a quota, but an approach like that could be motivated by a quota.
I think quota has specific legal ramifications too so when the term was used in the comment but not used in the link I thought it was important to point it out.
> prioritized diversity over merit in their hiring goals;
I have only fully watched the video you linked to as of yet, not the full podcast. The companies Harj talked about wanted diversity in that top TripleByte metric pool, something that Harj said they were not able to supply. To me it sounds like the companies are clearly saying what they want but Harj/TripleByte was not able to supply.
Harj's says the companies would not explicitly ask for lowering the metric cut off for diversity. My attempt to transcribe what he said "noone would actually want to explicitly say that".
> He was annoyed that many companies refused to acknowledge the trade-off and instead blamed TripleByte for (in my words) real-world, supply-side scarcity.
Most clients in my experience are annoyed when they want something, want to pay you for it, and you can not provide it. The details and complexities often do not factor in, they want a black box they stick money in and get a solution out so they can focus on their companies core competences.
> IMHO, the part that rankles from that interview into this thread is the dishonesty around that trade-off. The comforting lie ...
You seem to making a big claim, but it is not detailed in a way that I can respond to. I do not see TripleByte or Harj claiming they are doing science or demographic research about the world populations I do not think an large or sweeping claims can be built off what they are saying.
> This comes up in other fields, like Music. "Blind auditions are merit, therefore DEI" was once espoused, until the more dedicated DEI supporters realized that focusing on the fruit of work wasn't creating enough diversity https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
The article you link to here is a particular persons opinion and advocates for change that person wants, it does not document anything more general than that like your statement implied. It does not document a trend in the field of moving away from blind auditions, I don't follow the field closely so I would know if there is one, but this article does not document it.
I opened the link and searched for "random" and id not find anything. I thought there was going to be something like a randomized controlled trial or similar from what you said but if random does not show up on the search I am not sure what to look for or what you are referring to when you say "Randomized studies". I skimmed the article and did not spot anything that matched, but I may be missing something.
> Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.
> Male applicants were about half as likely as female applicants to receive a positive employer response in female-dominated occupations. For male-dominated and mixed occupations we found no significant differences in positive employer responses between male and female applicants.
> both scientists and laypeople overestimated the continuation of bias against female candidates. Instead, selection bias in favor of male over female candidates was eliminated and, if anything, slightly reversed in sign starting in 2009 for mixed-gender and male-stereotypical jobs in our sample. Forecasters further failed to anticipate that discrimination against male candidates for stereotypically female jobs would remain stable across the decades.
Interactions with the AI are posted publicly:
> All conversations with this AI system are published publicly online by default.
which is only to the benefit of the company.
At best the email is spam in my mind. The extra outrage on this spam compared to normal everyday spam is in part because AI is a hot button topic right now. Maybe also some from a theorized dystopian(-ish) future hinted at by emails like these.
reply