211–220 of 367 posts
I guarantee that all large enterprises that can legally get away with it, will soon start monitoring everything electronic their employees do using LLMs. Everything you write in an email or say in a Teams meeting will be transcribed and read. The LLM will be instructed to check that you’re “compliant with corporate communications policy.” Sounds innocuous, right? Just stop employees leaking PII or swearing at custome…
Microsoft is very intransparent here. They didn’t ask me, I couldn’t find out if that means my employer has access to my private data, and it kept coming back even after I found the “unlink” option. Creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany famously just passed legislation that forces employers to record working hours for all employees.
Very annoyingly so - it's a nightmare for anyone with flexible hours.
Now that Microsoft owns LinkedIn, I wouldn't trust them one bit to keep your activity there away from your employer. It would be really easy to correlate your sentiment analysis on Teams/email against your LI messaging traffic.
To what end? Like I'm not saying that there won't be people doing it, I just don't understand why a company that valued it's employees would be doing sentiment analysis on LinkedIn vs the many other ways they could approach the relationship. Is the idea that a workforce comprised of people that obey or work around the stupid unwritten rules is going to be more effective?
"Hey HR, do you want an early peek as to which of your employees are about to quit?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the subject too deeply, just enough to have me convinced UBI should be implemented in some form, but I think the fundamental assumption is that everything that the government has to provide, it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way. So by the mere act of UBI replacing many systems and centralising in a single program many forms of wealth redistrib…
> it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way Whose fault is it then? I mean if we agree that some governments/organizations are more efficient than others who else could we blame? >UBI replacing many systems For instance the British government spends about £2500 per capita on welfare. Even if admin etc. would cost nothing £200 per month is not exactly an amount which would a…
Look I am not a political philosopher, not even close. But I can refer you to Robert Nozick's the Minimal Estate. I am not sure I agree with everything he says there, but I think he describes interesting points regarding govnmt efficiency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the subject too deeply, just enough to have me convinced UBI should be implemented in some form, but I think the fundamental assumption is that everything that the government has to provide, it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way. So by the mere act of UBI replacing many systems and centralising in a single program many forms of wealth redistrib…
It is incredibly easy to automate giving every citizen an unconditional electronic deposit. The inefficiency and overhead of social programs comes from individual assessments to figure out who to exclude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Run it on a separate VLAN or on separate network hardware, as well.
So like, how does that work. I've got a pair of Asus routers with one acting as an access point (AI mesh). Would I need to buy new routers? Do I daisy chain the routers or can I reuse the wifi ap? Or put Merlin on my existing ones? I'm in tech but these network suggestions are all quite opaque to me.
Sometimes it's cheaper/easier to just buy a shitty router to use for your untrusted devices.
Nearly 20 years ago we used to install monitoring software to tell if a user's mouse or keyboard hadn't been used in a while. More and more places use traffic inspection "for security". Desks now use sensors to tell when warm bodies are near. Doesn't matter whether you're working from office or in the home, surveillance is here to stay. Good businesses should only care if work is getting accomplished. Bad businesses…
> Good businesses should only care if work is getting accomplished. This always comes across as people wanting to have the cake and eat it. Employers should only care that the work is getting done, but if the work isn't done, then the employee should still be able to go home after 8 hours and get full salary?
What would you rather have again? An employee finishing early sounds good to me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is incredibly easy to automate giving every citizen an unconditional electronic deposit. The inefficiency and overhead of social programs comes from individual assessments to figure out who to exclude.
I am not sure if I agree. Govmnt has to deal with much more than mere function of their programs. It must have approval, integrate with other social databases, be somewhat resilient against fraud. Not to mention this assumes everybody can be reached by electronic deposits which isn't a given.
For fraud issue you have the bank or banks running the program handle fraud per normal procedures and the government steps in to prosecute people who abuse the system as they do in present situations. The program loses no more than a normal bank to fraud and covers losses from fraud by investing deposits in safe securities.
How about this: Step 0 - define the ungameable behaviours that you know will result in an improved business outcome. Step 1 - tell everyone about these behaviours so that don't have to guess about what should be done to make the business great. Step 2 - track all of behaviours to ensure that everyone is doing them. It isn't necessary to be a creep about it because the behaviours cannot be gamed. If you find that you have to be a creep to accomplish your objectives, go back to step 0.
Please don't retort with creep's favourite quote: "Once a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.". If the measure is any good it is fine if it becomes a target. As an example, NPV is a fine measure and fine target.