Interesting that they limited the clause to only audio, video and chat. Looking at their definition of Customer Content it means that they can use, for example, documents you shared, transcripts, a very nebulous ‘outputs’ and visual displays.
So they can create a transcript of the conversation and train with it. Or train on any document you may have shared during a Zoom meeting.
I woukd have preferred the exception - if that was the intent - to enumerate the components of the Customer Content that they want to use for training.
10.1 Customer Content. You or your End Users may provide, upload, or originate data, content, files, documents, or other materials (collectively, “Customer Input”) in accessing or using the Services or Software, and Zoom may provide, create, or make available to you, in its sole discretion or as part of the Services, certain derivatives, transcripts, analytics, outputs, visual displays, or data sets resulting from the Customer Input (together with Customer Input, “Customer Content”);
When I saw the R1 chip in there and the functions it has I immediately thought: 'This is a chip they are using for sensor fusion in their self-driving moonshot, it just happens to also work for the AR headset'.
Or perhaps eventually the other way around: the primary reason they had to build the R1 was the required extreme power effiency in headset. Using 25-50 watts for this is okay in an EV.
Think about it these terms: originally there are 100 people in the line because the 101st will not queue since the time to get to the beginning of the line is more valuable than the raspberries at the controlled price. If nothing changes there will not be more people in that queue.
When the government gives free coffee to the people in line now the perceived value is the value of the raspberries at the controlled price plus the $ .75 of the coffee, making it worth to queue more - until the queue gets to the length at which the waiting time exceeds the value of the added coffee.
If your first paragraph was actually in the question then I would agree, but in the actual question, the reason there are exactly 100 people in line is that the question says there are 100 people in line. Phrasing certain parameters in your question as though they are absolutes and then expecting the person answering the question to change those parameters is like the worst kind of trick question. It's like when a toddler asks you if a ninja or a pirate would win in a fight, then says the pirate would win because he secretly has super strength. It's cute when a toddler does it because they innocently don't understand why their question wouldn't logically convey that hidden parameter to the listener, but inexcusable for a professor.
I think you're just reading an ambiguous sentence in a way that obviously wouldn't make sense in context. The question is in a very familiar form: describe a scenario with some assumptions, describe a peturbation, ask what impact the peturbation has. If the context was some annoying internet quiz, the answer might have been a gotcha that the number of people in the queue stay the same.... but this is an econ question it's going to involve how people respond to economic incentives.
This is like those LeetCode questions in job interviews, or the interviewer wants a complicated O(n) solution when the problem as stated would be better solved with a simple O(n^2) solution because the maximum problem size is tiny.
It's a mind-reading game of which assumptions the professor/interviewer wants to keep solid which ones are open to change.
Black cities were born out of need, since people of color were kicked out of their homes and had to find a place that was safe for them. The came redlining. The specific case of Freedom Georgia, the article you linked, is about building a town where they feel safe, not because of the color of the skin, but because they will have the opportunity to enforce fair policing and not have to fear for their lives when stopped by a patrol.
Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them. Quite a different context, right?
Yes, different context. But for the same idea to exist in both Adam and Freedom Georgia's peoples: self segregation.
Freedom Georgia wants a black owned town. They do it because they think of it as proxy for "safe for black people". And they think that because they see skin color as the clue to spot friend or foe.
A different context, to use the same tools (race based prejudice). Both Freedom Georgia and Adams are racists. Either being a racist is not the accusation society frames it to be, or both of them should be shunned. Neither outcome looks good...
> Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them.
How many people would the poll need for you to find it harder to condemn Adams?
I see a couple of straw-mans in the reasoning. First is the claim that taxation assumes that working you get paid for nothing - "When I work hard to earn money, I’m not getting something for nothing. I’m getting something for my time and my time has value." - that is not at all the point, the IRS doesn't assume that. You get paid for your time AND your skills AND your willingness to exchange both for value, whatever value you choose to receive.
Which takes us to the barter part of the essay.
There is a major difference between paying someone to do your chores or doing them yourself. What's the difference? The value you are willing to exchange not to do the chores yourself, of course. Be it lack of skills, lack of time or valuing that time spent doing something else more than what you're giving in exchange.
In other words: the IRS recognizes that you own your own time and are free to do with what you want, but when you exchange it for something of value - money, services, goods - you will be taxed on that value.
Not entering the discussion on taxes: both the lawn mowing person and the house cleaning person recognize that there is more value in the other's time for a given task than their own time, if and how much that differential in value should be taxed it's a different conversation.
"You get paid for your time AND your skills AND your willingness to exchange both for value, whatever value you choose to receive."
Still leaving out one major part: the willingness of some other entity to trade your input for money at a mutually agreeable rate. You can be willing to trade 55 hours a week of high-quality work for $3 million a year and not find an employer.
That leads to a much bigger question. Can human society only be civilized if there's a government drawing boundaries and enforcing laws?
I've never liked the idea that we would devolve into chaos if our government wasn't there keeping us all in line. It assumes that a) there are some people who know what is best for all of us and b) that we're effectively signing up to live as animals in a zoo.
Don't get me wrong this isn't some anarchist dream, I don't want to find out what happens without a government. But I can't sign up for the idea that a government and its taxes are a fundamental requirement for any form of civilized society.
I believe in inter-human relationships, trust and reputation. If you have a community of people where everybody knows everybody, you likely don't need greater authorities.
But that's not how the world works, and you will often deal with people from which you cannot know how trustworthy they are. Nothing stops a gang of thugs from outside to come steal and kill without repercussions.
There's some good research being done in regards to prisons in Calofirnia. And how an increase in prisoners has cause a massive deterioration in social conduct.
There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem there. Yes the society we have today is structured in a way that's dependent on a government authority, but that could very well be because we built this society alongside ever-growing governments.
Maybe the question doesn't matter now that this is where we're at, but at best I think it's be safe to say government taxes are necessary for the civilized society we have today.
Even the smallest human groups tend to end up with governments quite quickly. A tribal chief is a government. Taxes might not be necessary for the simplest governments that provide no services, but as soon as a government starts providing things for the people it governs it needs resources, and thus some way to acquire those resources.
Taxes are /one of/ the prices we pay to live in a partially-civilized partially-capitalist society.
We are not aware of non-hypothetical long-term widespread high standard of living completely non-capitalist societies (yes, that's a bunch of qualifiers), but there is certainly a range of taxation, legal and social policies that work to varying degrees of success.
It's interesting to see the reaction of some of the users, "How do I know it's a legit website", as something we take for granted - look at the URL - it's not to obvious for some people.
Add to that the disappearing address bar syndrome that many browsers seem to be catching and things just get a tiny bit worse.
I have a point to make, that I'm not totally convinced I believe in myself. Take this as a devil's advocate argument.
Nick Cave - correctly so - says that you can't write if you haven't experienced something to write about and you need to have an inner self that experiences things to do that in the first place.
But AI being trained on a vast amount of human writing, writing that was the consequence of the life experience of millions of selves, could be considered - if not a 'self' - as having experienced all the digested human experiences.
The mockery - the pastiche effect - is the result of asking ChatGPT to write something in the style of 'Nick Cave'. I bet it would read the same if you asked anyone to write something 'in the style of...'.
This response is probably more abstruse and rhetorical than logical, but here goes.
Consider that, if the AI "actually" has experienced all the digested human experiences, the vast majority of them -- even those, in the phase space of human experiences, "close" to Nick Cave, that the AI might utilize in order to seem most like Nick Cave -- are not those of Nick Cave, and detract from the machine's ability to authentically impersonate Nick Cave just as Nick Cave's writings add to that ability.
But, like, I don't think it actually has experienced all that stuff! Don't fall into the trap of thinking that human language correctly encapsulates (or even comprises!) human thought. You'd be in good company -- great philosophers like Bertrand Russell made that error, too. But human language is a messy abstraction for Something Else that's going on while we think. I can read inspiring or evocative words, but I don't really think that even the most vivid description can give me the visceral experiential knowledge of what it's like to climb Everest, or whatever. I can, however, read a lot about Everest and the experience of climbing it, and then write something that might trick readers into thinking I speak from firsthand experience. I suspect that this is closer to what the AI is doing.
My solution to this is to always use '+' email addresses - IE: "fabs+hulu@domain.com" - and I filter out all e-mails that don't have the '+' suffix as the recipient.
This way dropping the suffix drops those e-mails in my spam folder. Them normalizing the address makes my spam filter more efficient - and I would like to thank them for it.
It's not about sending email. They hash the normalized email and use the hash to track activity across websites and services to build user profiles for real-time ad bids.
Facebook (of all places!) is one of the few companies that makes this transparent.
If you have a Facebook account, and live in GDPR-land, go check which companies illegally passed on your data (https://www.facebook.com/adpreferences/ad_settings -> Audience based advertising) and report them!
Back when I actually used my Gmail account, I found LOTS of sites that would refuse to accept an email address with a + in it. I attributed this to a mixture of incompetence and active malice.
These days I host my own mail server and use . as the sseparator, which has been working well for years.
I see fully automated planes as a kind of "proof of stake" problem. Right now the person that makes the fly/no fly decision has his butt on the plane, he has a stake in a successful flight. I would have a problem with that call made by someone sitting on the ground.
I know it will eventually become the norm, and that there are incentives for airlines to make sure flying is safe, but a part of me can't give up the comfort of knowing I'm on a plane with the person who made the call to fly it.
I also wonder how, if they go fully automated, they handle the use case of a medical emergency. Who decides if the plan should land and where (the destination, on route, etc..)? It seems even if everything is fully automated they'll still be someone needed to make the final say (I guess the airlines would probably make this your customer service representative :)
Fully automated does not mean nobody from the company onboard, does it? Even assuming pilots have the final say about re-routing in case of medical emergency, I do not how they are better suited than a random flight attendant to evaluate medical conditions.
Thank you for calling the passenger emergency assistance hotline. We are experiencing high call volume and long wait times due to the covid-19 pandemic from 12 years ago. Your estimated wait time is 354 minutes.
I am with you on that, it makes perfect sense. I've come to accept that skepticism is healthy with things like this, it allows us to proceed with care and look at the issue from different angles. Plus, we've seen companies abuse our trust to gain a dollar.
So they can create a transcript of the conversation and train with it. Or train on any document you may have shared during a Zoom meeting.
I woukd have preferred the exception - if that was the intent - to enumerate the components of the Customer Content that they want to use for training.
10.1 Customer Content. You or your End Users may provide, upload, or originate data, content, files, documents, or other materials (collectively, “Customer Input”) in accessing or using the Services or Software, and Zoom may provide, create, or make available to you, in its sole discretion or as part of the Services, certain derivatives, transcripts, analytics, outputs, visual displays, or data sets resulting from the Customer Input (together with Customer Input, “Customer Content”);