[POLL] New features! Less bugs! Both! šŸ¤Æ

  • New features!
  • Less bugs!
  • Both!
0 voters
1 Like

These Discourse (forum software) people are awesome. A serious person could really do something neat with this new RANKING thing they stuck in Polls.

We should try to find a serious person. :nerd:

1 Like

To whom? :grin:

Good philosophical question.

  • Is there a beneficiary to ā€œfairnessā€?
  • Does it come at a cost to another? Is the cost fair?
  • If there is, does that make fair also not fair and thus a paradox? Or does it make fair the opposite of benevolent?
  • Is fairness static or dynamic?
  • Is fairness universal or subjective?
  • If subjective them it can be fair and unfair simultaneously based on perception, making the word pointless .
  • Can fairness be weaponized making it no longer existing as fairness?
  • Does intent matter in fairness or just outcome?
  • How can you even define fairness without the definition including some paradoxes?
  • My toddlers only use ā€œfairnessā€ from a place of jealousy, entitlement and victimstanceā€¦ (ā€œNo fair! I want that!ā€), And itā€™s rare for many adults to use it for any other purpose that isnā€™t self-enriching.

Iā€™m actually always impressed when somebody uses fairness in a way that isnā€™t self-enriching. For example

  • A coach reminding players to respect the rules and their opponents.
  • Journalism that presents facts without agenda or narrative.
  • Steelman-ing a viewpoint or stance that isnā€™t your own, or especially is opposite to yours (I honestly see this is one of the biggest signs of maturity and high level emotional intelligence that very few people have the ability to ever do at all even when they try, and is one of the best contenders for fairness that isnā€™t tainted by a purely selfish motivation)
  • Constructive feedback

Iā€™m Not even convinced there has to be a ā€œfair to whomā€ implication of victimstance in all cases. Is it really part of the definition? :upside_down_face:

1 Like

Thanks carver, I enjoyed reading that. :slight_smile:

@Resist said:

I said:

What I thought you meant in response was:

To be fair to Wyze Co, management and developersā€¦

Bugs are inevitable. They are endemic to sofware development. Introducing fewer new features will not necessarily result in a significant reduction in bugs.

We can have Both new features and less bugs by more efficiently tracking down bugs.

Is that roughly correct?

1 Like

I think these respond (in a sense) to some in your series of questions. :slight_smile:

Good sense is innate. Living in a strong, healthy culture, a common sense develops. Disagreements mediated in good faith with good will are resolvable. Fairly.

But you must start with human sense. Do you sense good faith and good will are present? Then a common sense is achievable and a fair outcome possible.

How will you know it is fair? You will sense it.

Close enough. :slight_smile:

I donā€™t knowā€¦working customer service in College made me have serious doubts about this. :rofl:

Too subjective.

This can be too magical like the new cultural phenomenon of ā€œvibesā€ā€¦I donā€™t mind some degree of psychological profiling based on empirical evidence in certain circumstances, but magical ā€œsenseā€ or ā€œvibesā€ that is unfounded on any evidence or statistical reasoning is generally a form of magical superstition and not good sense from a demonstrable empirical standpoint, but confirmation bias can be a finicky mistress that will tell anyone what they want to believe about their ā€œsensingā€ or ā€œvibesā€ and thus I donā€™t generally let that hold weight depending on the implication.

OK, but some peopleā€™s ā€œsenseā€ is only about whether it enriches themselves in some way. They will thus call something ā€œfairā€ because they ā€œsenseā€ it as desireable, when others would not. I am not sure that ā€œsenseā€ can be an objectively good standard that will hold up to scrutiny since it is too ambiguous. :thinking: What if 1 person ā€œsensesā€ 1 one way and the other ā€œsensesā€ the other way? What if it is deeply divided in half in the world population? If sense were so common then there would not be such hot division, but instead widespread consensus, but we do not have widespread consensus, erto, ā€œsenseā€ may be flawedā€¦

1 Like

Since @carverofchoiceā€™s current profile pictureā€”at least in smaller renderingsā€”could be interpreted as having the appearance of a :spider_web:, one might wonder ifā€¦

2 Likes

Do you know that what tech/ai is commiting us to is the best possible future and not a nightmare?

If you donā€™t knowā€“and are still willing to commit usā€“then you have faith in your vision (a sense.)

ā€¦and then @p2788deal said this:

and I thought what Iā€™ve thought before:

ā€¦and that p27 probably has a better basis to judge than I, though I donā€™t know that for sure. :slight_smile:

In the poll I chose:

  1. Less bugs!
  2. New features!
  3. Both!

ā€˜Both!ā€™ third because itā€™s probably not achievable. I didnā€™t abstain because I think itā€™s possible, but a longshot.

Wrestle with it yourself, how do you see it? :slight_smile:

Itā€™s a long story but a boss once assigned me to a testing group as a punishment because of a perceived slight. It was short-lived but I did get a minor subsystem test fully automated. So yes, I do have experience with software testing.

2 Likes

Bah. My excitement about AI and my willingness to embrace its potential for humanityā€™s future stem from reasoned optimism, EVIDENCE of AIā€™s benefits and research and demonstrations. It is different from relying solely on ā€œvibesā€ or ā€œa sixth senseā€ to make judgments based solely on ā€œfeelingsā€. Iā€™m not saying there is no value in feelings, and that we canā€™t make a list of a billion case studies where unfounded ā€œfeelingsā€ turned out to be ā€œrightā€ or whatever, but we could do the exact opposite too and show just as many case studies proving the exact opposite case too where unfounded feelings were 100% wrong and destructive.

I think there are differences between:

  • Evidence vs Intuition/fear My support is primarily based on tangible advancements and proven applications, including things like medical breakthroughs, enhanced productivity, and problem-solving at scales humans cannot achieve alone. I can acknowledge the risks, but my perspective is grounded in assessing the evidence and potential benefits. In contrast, relying on an unfounded ā€œsenseā€ or intuition isnā€™t backed by data or analysis and can lead to fear without actionable reasoning.
  • Calculated Risk vs. Speculative Fear: No transformative technology has ever been without risks. History shows that electricity, the internet, and even vaccines faced skepticism and fear. Even things like BAR CODES and QR codes had people in major panic attacks because of their ā€œfeelingsā€ and ā€œsenseā€ about it being the end of the world. The difference is that many of these technologies were still adopted because of their immense benefits, despite uncertainties. Supporting AI while recognizing risks involves managing and mitigating those risksā€”an approach far removed from superstition, blind faith or blind fear because of a ā€œfeelingā€ or ā€œsenseā€ that may be wildly unfounded in some cases. People now look back on most of the other historical technological advancements and think a lot of the protesting panic about most of them was ridiculously unfounded and in hindsight, people canā€™t even comprehend why people were so terrified of many of them.
  • Faith in Process, Not Gut Feelings: My ā€œfaithā€ in AI isnā€™t blind but rooted in the collective intelligence of scientists, developers, ethicists, and policymakers working to shape its trajectory. Trusting this process, even without 100% certainty of outcomes, is a reasoned stance. On the other hand, the argument that a ā€œsenseā€ of impending doom should be weighted equally dismisses the rigorous methodologies that shape AI development. Will it be used for bad things? Sure. Almost all technologies have been used for bad things too. But that doesnā€™t make people go get rid of every form of human advancement just because someone somewhere misuses it sometimes. Shall we ban fire and electricity now too? We just saw how much chaos and destruction Fire can cause. Maybe itā€™s better to never allow it? Of course not.
  • Encouraging Progress: If progress relied only on absolute certainty, humanity would never advance. The key difference is that my excitement for AI aligns with an openness to innovation and improvement. Acting based on an unverified sense often halts progress and leads to inaction.

I see a very big difference between magical ā€œvibesā€ and ā€œsenseā€ that lacks grounding, logic, or empirical evidence to contribute meaningfully to clear rationals vs a reasoned, evidence-based perspective that acknowledges both the immense potential and the manageable risks of a transformative technology like AI. While ā€œvibesā€ and ā€œsenseā€ may occasionally align with reality, they are far too inconsistent and subjective to serve as the foundation for meaningful decisions about the future of humanity.

Feelings can be a valuable signal, but they are not a substitute for the deliberate, informed action necessary to navigate the challenges and opportunities including those that AI brings.

I donā€™t mind disagreement though. I am just explaining that ā€œvibesā€ and feelings as a rationale donā€™t hold a lot of weight to me even if they are fashionable nowadays. In my experience, nowadays most people use ā€œvibesā€ as a manipulation tactic so they donā€™t have to explain anything or use real reasons or have a conversation with reason/logic, etc. My feelings have been ā€œwrongā€ or ā€œmisplacedā€ before, as have those of nearly everyone. That doesnā€™t mean I donā€™t give them any stock, but it does mean I donā€™t let them rule my life and every decision, that is why we have inhibitionsā€¦things that sometimes STOP us from acting on our every feeling or impulse, especially the negative ones. If our feelings are always right, then why donā€™t we get rid of all our inhibitions and stop sending people to prison when they follow their every impulse and ā€œsenseā€ they feel to do or not do something? Because feelings and impulses and ā€œsenseā€ is not always ā€œgoodā€ or right. It is not reliable. Inhibitions exist to allow us to use reason, logic, etc to override those feelings and impulse senses with more thought out decisions not always purely based on emotion senses. People who donā€™t use reason/inhibition logic to control their decisions almost always end up in prison. I think the fruits of the difference can speak for themselves.

Of course, I am using some extreme examples as an illustration to make the point, but itā€™s all partially just in fun to have somewhat of a mock debate with you in the watercooler. Donā€™t take me too seriously. :slight_smile:

1 Like

We should call you Hector. You really pound things home. :slight_smile:

Reducing everything to DATA (dessicating the organic stuff until it falls away) yields a very harsh EVIDENCE. Abstract in the extreme.

This is the way some people like it. Manageable.

ā€œThe assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.ā€

ā€œAn intuitive or acquired perception or ability to estimateā€¦ A vague feeling or presentiment.ā€

I saw you praying to the neon god you made in a previous lifetime. It buzzes and flashes its message now, incomplete and intermittent.

But still in force.

2 Likes

:exploding_head: :laughing:

2 Likes