AI's advantage would be that their learning can be shared
For example if Robot 0002 learns that trying to move a pan without using the handle is a bad idea, Robot 0001 would get that update (even if it came before)
But that ends up with weirdly dogmatic rules because it's not always a bad idea to move a pan without using the handle, it's just in some situations. It still takes a ton of potentially destructive iterations to be sure of something.
Yea its tricky and costly. I believe we should bet on specificity to make this more optimal.
I know the trend with AI is to keep the scope generic so it can tackle different domains and look more like us, but I believe that even if we reach that, we'll always come back to make it better for a specific skill set, because we also do that as humans. No reason for an AI driver to know how to cook.
If we narrow the domain as much as possible it will cut the number of experiments it needs to do significantly
Edit: I wonder if its even going to be useful to devote so much resources into making a machine as similar as us as possible. We don't want a plane to fly like a bird, even if we could build it.
The article it's cherry-picking one minor incident of many more, to superficially construct a narrative to provoke the kind of reaction you're having at the moment (how could someone be banned just by referencing a snl skit), so readers instantly pick his side without considering all other repeated violations of their CoC:
Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which encouraged increasingly emotional responses from other community members. The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion.
Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members.
Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment.
Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences.
Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission.
Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.
Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions.
Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly.
Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health.
(I don't necessarily agree with either side, I just find it worthy pointing out that the article is bending the story to fit a narrative the author usually tries to paint).
> Making light ... which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment
No comment needed
> Discussing bans or removals of community members
Similar to violation of later Russian law that prohibits criticizing the government.
> Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.
Sounds bad, but really hard to judge without examples.
> Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts
Was there a rule that prohibits that?
> Use of potentially offensive terms
Is this like a kitchen knife "potential instrument of murder", or "he said something we think might have offended someone else. We don't have anyone complaining yet, but let's ban just in case"?
> Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health.
> Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences.
These two are problematic, but the first one may be valid depending on actual circumstances (e.g. if his assumption or speculations were correct, then there's nothing to blame the person for).
The neurodivergence part got to me. Almost by definition, it takes effort (i.e, is harder) to interact with a person that’s different. So why is it controversial to say it takes effort to interact with a neurodivergent person. As one myself, I can certainly say it takes a _lot_ of effort the other way. Talking to normal people is exhausting!
My general experience with the forum - rather, with people who have social power in the Python community - is that they really don't make much of an attempt to accommodate neurodiversity. It's not even clear that they really understand what that would entail.
In particular, an entire discussion of how to do so (see Mr. Peters' thread https://discuss.python.org/t/how-can-we-better-support-neuro... ) was mis-cast as an attempt to petition for allowing more "slack" to neurodivergent forum users. But that simply wasn't the argument. Mr. Peters and I, and others such as Chris Angelico, repeatedly emphasized that their communication is lacking, and when they do say what they mean, they are extraordinarily closed-minded about it.
I expect to have a lengthy blog article about this at some point, but it probably be rather challenging to express everything precisely.
The cherry-picking is explicit in the article, and the fact that the cherry-picked reasons are given as reasons at all is chilling. As is the fact this is all being dealt with publicly, like some sort of public shaming ritual. The process the Python project has adopted feels like social media hysteria formalised.
Do you not realize that this just proves that this was indeed the worst kind of baseless personality driven witch hunt? This offering of proofs and justifications damns itself with it's own words.
Once again the most uncivil people with the worst conduct are the ones talking the loudest about codes of conduct.
While I've generally not been especially fond of the author's sensationalized approach to content, nor do I necessarily agree with the political bias therein, I have certainly found it to be generally honest to a standard not reached by many other news bloggers. The only real factual issue I had this with particular piece is that it inconsistently refers to the 3-month suspension as a "ban".
As another commenter said, the cherry-picking is explicit in the article. But I'm writing more to assure you - as someone who was personally caught up in the situation - that the other points offered are about equally laughable. Some of them are hard to imagine as problematic even as stated; some of them appear to be multiple points referring to the same incident (e.g. "Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly." appears to also be about the SNL skit case - the point of referring to that skit was to clue the reader in to the self-censored word); and the rest - well, there are clear candidates for what incidents they have in mind, and it's simply absurd to frame them as their list does.
Unfortunately, a significant amount of the relevant forum content has now been hidden from the public eye (including many of my own posts, and posts where Mr. Peters defended me). However, archives certainly exist - I saved my own posts (and have been planning to release them for nearly a month now, and am about to do so), and it's possible to use the Python Discourse forum in "mailing list" mode, so there will be people out there with their own private copies in their email clients.
But still, some of the additional charges sound unenforceably vague and/or otherwise dubious as well.
So overall the rap sheet has a distinct aftertaste of "We're getting tired of this guy, but the current set of charges doesn't quite pack the punch we'd like it to have. So let's lather him up with rather more slippery charges X, Y and Z to, you know, make it stick and speed this process up. And so he can really start to feel the full sting of our opprobrium. That'll learn him."
I actually believe that community standards are very important, and that it's not so bad to err (modestly) on the side of safety and general respect for others.
But there's also this thing known as "due process". Basic common sense, and at least a modicum of sanity are important to have in place as well.
I feel like every reply making a point against memorisation would benefit from having their definition of what is memorization, because every single one of those replies sound like they're still implicitly describing some sort of memorization as the better way
I feel like this is about the difference between rote/explicit memorization and organic/implicit/tacit memorization, for a lack of better words. I suspect the former could narrow/restrict your understanding because it may be constrained/limited by the vocabulary/definition itself.
I think perhaps there's a confusion of "memorization" with "rote memorization". The word "rote" connotes flashcards and dull drills, but memorization by itself, to me at least, is more like "a focused attempt at internalizing information", in whatever way that means to a person, as opposed to just ingesting it or letting it wash over you/osmosis.
But that's just my interpretation of the terms. I don't know what the "official" meanings are.
