> I am one of fifteen rank-and-file workers, and we are privileged to be led by thousands of Senior VPs.
This is simultaneously hilarious and painfully familiar.
noir_lord 1 hours ago [-]
> We began a heated affair. A contractor hit a pipe above us, so rancid mayo splattered onto our bodies as we embraced, but we were too absorbed in our passion to mind. Try doing that from home.
I can't remember the last time something I read on the internet got a laugh that hard.
The whole thing is brilliant.
cafebabbe 1 hours ago [-]
Gosh it's so soothing to read that after those months of drowning into the turbulent deluge of dAIrrhea that are blogposts now
selwoot 1 hours ago [-]
I reminds me of something I read years ago. Maybe sometime around 1984...
sctb 3 minutes ago [-]
I'm getting major DFW vibes.
donquichotte 5 minutes ago [-]
Feels a bit more light hearted and humourous, more like Brazil?
copperx 54 minutes ago [-]
Wasn't 1984 released in 1949?
Insanity 38 minutes ago [-]
Yup, it was written around 1948. Easy to remember as you just swap the final 2 digits.
bee_rider 21 minutes ago [-]
Oh wow, if they’d changed the title to match the release date (1994) that would really change the vibe, haha.
ddoolin 52 minutes ago [-]
It really does have a very similar feeling.
pjc50 39 minutes ago [-]
It takes the structure, the affair with Julia, the "we have always been at war with", best buddy/big brother, and the forced rehabilitation from 1984. This is also part of the joke, the reader is expected to twig.
burningChrome 29 minutes ago [-]
> founded as a mayonnaise company, which now sells consumer packaged goods, software as a service, and surveillance technology.
The visual of this is completely hilarious.
noir_lord 22 minutes ago [-]
> software as a service, and surveillance technology.
If someone could tell me the difference between those last two at this point I'd be grateful and yes the entire thing is bitingly funny.
gmiller123456 9 minutes ago [-]
This guy is a straight shooter with upper management written all over him.
BLKNSLVR 1 hours ago [-]
I'm assuming ButtFuckers demerged to become CageFight Pharma and SodaPorn.
jgbuddy 1 hours ago [-]
AI could never write this
cbg0 46 minutes ago [-]
It will now be able to.
xena 44 minutes ago [-]
No, there is soul in this that a soulless automaton cannot replicate. It is the difference between making something to be consumed and something to be felt. This is something to be felt.
meowface 24 minutes ago [-]
Current LLMs couldn't write this. Ones in a few years possibly could. Betting AI will never be as good as humans at [X] is usually not the hill you want to die on.
Autious 26 minutes ago [-]
If I train my 1000 billion parameter blank AI on this text and only this text over and over again, we may get 99% there.
lelanthran 23 minutes ago [-]
> If I train my 1000 billion parameter blank AI on this text and only this text over and over again, we may get 99% there.
You'll get 100% of the way there, because, lacking any other training, it will only ever be able to reproduce this text verbatim.
Hence, 100%, hence mission accomplished.
Borealid 11 minutes ago [-]
That's not how training works.
Training tries to produce something that scores highly in training evaluations. With one data point, the evaluation is solely how closely the model output resembles the single input text.
Let's say you do that, and the training text is 58,100 tokens long. Let's say you ask the model to produce 58,101 tokens. Will it "reproduce [the] text verbatim"? No, it can't, because of the dissimilar requested length. Something "new" will come out.
It's also entirely possible that no matter how long you train, the model never converges on generating exactly the same output as its training data - you could end up with an average loss value of 0.001 instead of 0.0. It's not a perfectly deterministic process.
You're correct in principle, but in reality even with limited training data real-world models produce something that isn't exactly their training, especially when sampled stochastically. They're biased toward their training data, not forced to it.
Invictus0 24 minutes ago [-]
Souls aren't real
x86x87 40 minutes ago [-]
it could given enough slop doulas
indoordin0saur 59 minutes ago [-]
Hilarious read, and strangely accurate in a way.
flir 49 minutes ago [-]
"More leaders means more leadership"
Heh.
Also: make it stop!!!
lbrito 18 minutes ago [-]
Sounds like Amazon pivoted to the mayo business!
bethekind 40 minutes ago [-]
RTO4AI should be a slogan. Or some variant thereof
liquid_thyme 18 minutes ago [-]
We used to develop AI to convince us its human (turing test). The future is about convincing AI/Automated Systems that you're - competent (hiring), not a bot (anti-spam), doing your job (KPIs), not a threat (ala social score, AI powered weapons targeting), worthy of being saved (insurance claims), etc, etc.
Whether or not humans break from those shackles, I for one, am hoping Hollywood supplies us with wonderfully dystopian sci-fi entertainment for years to come.
neuroelectron 17 minutes ago [-]
Returning to the office doesn't solve the problem of replacing office jobs with AI
_doctor_love 35 minutes ago [-]
This was very funny! Paradoxically, I have found that working with people in person is the fastest way to enable them on using AI.
It feels very similar to teaching pair programming and TDD. I can do it over remote, but there's a magic spark that happens in person that is really not replicable any other way.
talhaanwar 50 minutes ago [-]
Remind of covid days. But i prefer wfh
mhd 1 hours ago [-]
I hope "slop doula" sticks around…
59 minutes ago [-]
iou 52 minutes ago [-]
I thought mcsweeneys did satire?
phplovesong 58 minutes ago [-]
RTO is the worst shit managers try to push.
neutrinobro 1 hours ago [-]
> Associate Slop Doula
had me ROFL
Rendered at 16:07:05 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
This is simultaneously hilarious and painfully familiar.
I can't remember the last time something I read on the internet got a laugh that hard.
The whole thing is brilliant.
The visual of this is completely hilarious.
If someone could tell me the difference between those last two at this point I'd be grateful and yes the entire thing is bitingly funny.
You'll get 100% of the way there, because, lacking any other training, it will only ever be able to reproduce this text verbatim.
Hence, 100%, hence mission accomplished.
Training tries to produce something that scores highly in training evaluations. With one data point, the evaluation is solely how closely the model output resembles the single input text.
Let's say you do that, and the training text is 58,100 tokens long. Let's say you ask the model to produce 58,101 tokens. Will it "reproduce [the] text verbatim"? No, it can't, because of the dissimilar requested length. Something "new" will come out.
It's also entirely possible that no matter how long you train, the model never converges on generating exactly the same output as its training data - you could end up with an average loss value of 0.001 instead of 0.0. It's not a perfectly deterministic process.
You're correct in principle, but in reality even with limited training data real-world models produce something that isn't exactly their training, especially when sampled stochastically. They're biased toward their training data, not forced to it.
Heh.
Also: make it stop!!!
Whether or not humans break from those shackles, I for one, am hoping Hollywood supplies us with wonderfully dystopian sci-fi entertainment for years to come.
It feels very similar to teaching pair programming and TDD. I can do it over remote, but there's a magic spark that happens in person that is really not replicable any other way.
had me ROFL