Was not relevant with frameworks or anything else.
And if you see this as a business opportunity: you will loose this game. All big companies out there leverage LLM/ai to have their work force a few % more efficient.
LLM can level a play field but only when you use it
Why are people like Suckerberg so uninterested in doing good?
Just making more money and more jachts can't make you any happier?
Honestly give money to the schools and poor and visit them once a year. Still distopian If you only do it for recognition but looking at other humans thrive TX to you has to be worth more than what they do.
And no one will remember Suck as a good person to remember for anyway
As satisfying as it can be to denigrate people by mispronouncing their name (I do it myself sometimes when talking about these people with friends), in a more public setting it's better to be polite and find ways to express your displeasure without name calling. Writing "Suckerberg" and "Suck" looks petty, not witty.
He has got to suck up to power. These tech giants look so pathetic. They could instead collude and show what power they have over the president (quite a bit really) and the good they can do to make up for their sins.
It's a disability if it impacts one or more major life function. Otherwise it's just an answer to a question you might not have even known you wanted to ask.
I'm sure I would've been diagnosed autistic as a kid instead of just difficult. Not sure it would've changed anything. I still would've been very strong willed and confused about why people around me say one thing but do a different thing. I think what would've been different is maybe other people's reaction to me?
I think the biggest benefit to diagnosis is both the parent and the child are able to draw on resources for those disabilities - learn about coping mechanisms, get advice from other autistic people, etc.
> confused about why people around me say one thing but do a different thing.
I think it importantly helps shift this confusion from the framing of "Is something wrong with me?" which a lot of young autistic people feel
I never thought there was something wrong with me, maybe that's the difference.
I communicate extremely clearly. Most people do not. They say half of what they want, or ignore half of what they read/hear. It's very odd. Life is much easier (read: less complicated, not more pleasant) when you communicate as if the other person isn't actually reading your thoughts and emotions. That applies for neuro- typical and divergent people equally.
Why is the word disability or illness is somehow shameful? Making people stop calling some illnesses an illness just forces doublespeak and shifting of the same meaning to a different word. "We don't call autistic people ill, we call them alternatively healthy"(c) or some other similar bullshit. I'm not normo-typical for example and have some conditions. If someone will call me ill, I would simply nod and agree because that's what truth is about me. What's the big deal? Being different from majority is a disability, and instead of shamefully hiding it behind doublespeak and twisting words, it would be better to acknowledge it and help all of us to be accommodated by the said majority.
And my ADHD (rather severe) is both a disability and an illness, and it sucks. It affects my wellbeing in all possible senses and I know it without projecting blame on some virtual "others". It can be even mitigate with medicines, because it is literally a disorder throwing off my internal body chemistry balance off.
It is no different than say diabetes T2. Both are diseases which are caused by wrong levels something essential, both can be mitigated by a treatment which changes levels of that something. Both have significant societal impact on a life of the affected person. Yet, there is no doubt in the social networks that T2 is an illness, while ADHD is for some reason not afforded as much.
a disability or illness implies the need to be cured. but for high functioning autistic people it is not clear whether they are actually having a disability or an illness that needs curing. if something doesn't need curing then it's not an illness, nor a disability. so either we don't diagnose people who don't need curing but do need an explanation for their differences as autistic, or we accept that at least some high functioning autistic people are not disabled or ill.
i mentioned before the book "Speed of Dark" by Elisabeth Moon which explores this topic.
I just want to note that asking people with severe autistic symptoms may be as pointless as asking a person with alzheimer. They have no frame of reference in that particular moment. But that is only my hypothesis, so I may be wrong. But for example I have an ADHD for decades and I'm sick and tired of this quite obviously illness and disability. I would immediately pay if there was a one time cure for it, no debate even for a second.
I just want to note that asking people with severe autistic symptoms may be as pointless as asking a person with alzheimer
well that is the ethical question, isn't it? i mean for severe symptoms that cause obvious problems, sure. but what about lesser symptoms? where do we draw the line? the affected person should have a say in that, and, what i find much more important, outsiders need to be neutral. while those affected obviously can't be neutral about it, those outside often aren't either. we define what is normal, and we try to explain every deviation from normal as a problem that needs to be fixed.
i am not diagnosed, but i do have behaviors that i think are not normal. they are not getting in the way of my life, so i don't need them fixed, nor do i want to fix them, but if i were to be diagnosed then there sure is someone who would insist that all those diagnosed should be fixed whether they want it or not.
and even worse those that want to take away my autonomy because they believe that anyone diagnosed is not capable of leading a normal life and should not be allowed to do certain things, such as raising children.
did you see the movie "i am sam"? sam is one of those with severe autism who as you say don't have a frame of reference for their own disability. regardless of whether sam could be cured, or whether he should be cured, it should be possible to create an environment where he can live together with his daughter. who gets custody should not even matter. you don't separate siblings either just because one sibling is not able to care for the other. so why separate sam and his daughter? it's done in the belief that children better be raised by normal people and that the bond they have with their own less capable parents doesn't matter.
the point i am trying to make is, cure or not, first of all, as a society we need to make accommodations for those who are ill or disabled. we do it for those using wheelchairs or for blind or deaf people, so why not for autistic people as well?
instead of changing every individual to conform to society, i believe society should adapt to accommodate all individuals so each one can live a dignified life.
That doesn't matter _at all_ when the government comes knocking at Google's door - in the best case, they have a subpoena that can at least be appealed afterwards, in the worst case it's DOGE teens backed by a bunch of heavily armed guys in camouflage.
Indeed. No data is safe or secure in such environments.
This has become an issue big enough that the US company I work for is actually removing data from US cloud providers to make it harder to get at. The European divisions have started data sovereignty projects because it's now a principal risk.
Was not relevant with frameworks or anything else.
And if you see this as a business opportunity: you will loose this game. All big companies out there leverage LLM/ai to have their work force a few % more efficient.
LLM can level a play field but only when you use it