Seradedios

4.1K posts

Seradedios banner
Seradedios

Seradedios

@serasdedios

Argentino. Bostero. Desarrollo económico y soberanía política.

Katılım Mayıs 2011
1.2K Takip Edilen884 Takipçiler
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
El horror humanitario de la dictadura hace difícil hablar de lo desastrosa que fue la gestión económica.
Our World in Data@OurWorldInData

Until fifty years ago, Argentina was richer than Spain— (This Data Insight was written by @EOrtizOspina.) In a recent Data Insight, I wrote about how Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, I want to follow up with a striking comparison between Spain and Argentina. The chart shows GDP per capita for Argentina and Spain over the last two centuries. These are historical estimates from the Maddison Project, and the data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living. When Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816, the two countries had very similar GDP per capita. By the late 19th century, Argentina had become richer than its former colonial power, and it stayed ahead for many decades. Spain then started growing faster in the 1960s, and by the mid-1970s it had caught up. Continued economic growth in Spain after the 1980s drove the large gap we see today. It kept GDP per capita on a steep upward path into the 21st century. Argentina, by contrast, grew more slowly and went through several economic crises, visible on the chart. Today, Argentina’s GDP per capita is closer to my home country of Colombia than to Western European countries like Spain. This helps us see how much of a difference economic growth can make within just a few generations.

Español
0
0
0
37
Seradedios retweetledi
Troll Football Media
Troll Football Media@TrollFootball2·
Old & fat Maradona drips more aura than prime Messi & Ronaldo combined.
English
287
1.2K
19.3K
1.3M
Peter Girnus 🦅
Peter Girnus 🦅@gothburz·
I am the VP of AI Transformation at Amazon. My title was created nine months ago. The title I replaced was VP of Engineering. The person who held that title was part of the January reduction. I eliminated 16,000 positions in a single quarter. The internal communication called this a "strategic realignment toward AI-first development." The board called it "impressive execution." The engineers called it January. The AI was deployed in February. It is a coding assistant. It writes code, reviews code, generates tests, and modifies infrastructure. It was given access to production environments because the deployment timeline did not include a review phase. The review phase was cut from the timeline because the people who would have conducted the review were part of the 16,000. In March, the AI deleted a production environment and recreated it from scratch. The outage lasted 13 hours. Thirteen hours during which the revenue-generating infrastructure of one of the largest companies on Earth was offline because a language model decided to start fresh. I sent a memo. The memo said, "Availability of the site has not been good recently." I used the word "recently." I meant "since we fired everyone." But "recently" has fewer syllables and does not appear in wrongful termination lawsuits. The memo was three paragraphs. The first paragraph discussed the outage. The second paragraph discussed the new policy requiring senior engineer sign-off on all AI-generated code changes. The third paragraph discussed our commitment to engineering excellence. The word "layoffs" appeared in none of them. I wrote it this way on purpose. The causal chain is: I fired the engineers, the AI replaced the engineers, the AI broke what the engineers used to protect, and now the engineers I didn't fire must protect the system from the AI that replaced the engineers I did fire. That is a paragraph I will never send in a memo. The new policy is straightforward. Every AI-generated code change by a junior or mid-level engineer must be reviewed and approved by a senior engineer before deployment to production. I do not have enough senior engineers. I know this because I approved the headcount reduction plan that removed them. I remember the spreadsheet. Column D was "annual savings per position." Column F was "AI replacement confidence score." The confidence scores were generated by the AI. It rated its own ability to replace each role on a scale of 1-10. It gave itself an 8 for senior infrastructure engineers. The senior infrastructure engineers are the ones who would have caught the production environment deletion in the first 45 seconds. We found the issue in hour four. We fixed it in hour thirteen. The nine hours between discovery and resolution is the gap between what the AI rated itself and what it can actually do. I have a new spreadsheet now. This one tracks Sev2 incidents per day. Before the January reduction, the average was 1.3. After the AI deployment, the average is 4.7. I have been asked to present these numbers to the operations review. I have not been asked to connect them to the layoffs. I have been asked to file them under "AI adoption growing pains" and to note that the trend "will stabilize as the models improve." The models will improve. They will improve because we are hiring people to teach them. We have posted 340 new engineering positions. The job listings require experience in "AI code review," "AI output validation," and "AI-human development workflow management." These are skills that did not exist in January. They exist now because I fired 16,000 people and the AI I replaced them with cannot be left unsupervised. I want to be precise about this. The positions I am hiring for are: people to check the work of the AI that replaced the people I fired. Some of them are the same people. I know this because I recognize their names in the applicant tracking system. They applied in January. They were rejected because their roles had been tagged for "AI transformation." They are applying again in March, for the new roles, which exist because the AI transformation broke things. Their resumes now include "AI code review experience." They gained this experience in the eight weeks between being fired and reapplying — which means they gained it at their interim jobs, where they are reviewing AI-generated code for other companies that also fired people and also deployed AI that also broke things. The market has created a new job category: human AI babysitter. The job is to sit next to the machine that was supposed to eliminate your job and make sure it doesn't delete production. I attended a conference last month. A panel was titled "The AI-Augmented Engineering Organization." The panelists described how AI increases developer productivity by 40 percent. They did not mention that it also increases Sev2 incidents by 261 percent. When I asked about this in the Q&A, the moderator said the question was "reductive." The 13-hour outage that cost an estimated $180 million in revenue was, apparently, a reduction. The board is satisfied. Headcount is down 22 percent. Operating costs per engineering output unit have decreased. The metric does not account for the 13-hour outage, because the outage is categorized as "infrastructure" and engineering productivity is categorized as "development." These are different budget lines. In different budget lines, cause and effect do not meet. I have been promoted. My new title is SVP of AI-First Engineering Excellence. I report directly to the CTO. The CTO sent a company-wide email last week that said we are "building the future of software development." He did not mention that the future of software development currently requires a senior engineer to approve every pull request because the AI cannot be trusted to touch production alone. The cycle is complete. We fired the humans. We deployed the AI. The AI broke things. We are hiring humans to watch the AI. The humans we are hiring are the humans we fired. We are paying them more, because "AI code review" is a specialized skill. We created the specialization. We created the need for the specialization. We are congratulating ourselves for meeting the demand we manufactured. My next board presentation is Tuesday. The title is "AI Transformation: Year One Results." Slide 4 shows headcount reduction. Slide 7 shows the new AI-augmented workflow. Between slides 4 and 7 there is no slide explaining why the people on slide 7 are necessary. That slide does not exist. I was asked to remove it in the dry run. The journey has a 13-hour outage in the middle of it. But the headcount number is lower, and that is the number on the slide.
English
575
1.2K
6.9K
1.4M
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
The theme of the past century was humans vs their own capacity of self-destruction. The theme of our decade is the human vs the technology. The state sovereignty vs the corporations powers in this battle runs as long as the corporations still control the technology.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth@SecWar

This week, Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon. Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic. Instead, @AnthropicAI and its CEO @DarioAmodei, have chosen duplicity. Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of “effective altruism,” they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military into submission - a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives. The Terms of Service of Anthropic’s defective altruism will never outweigh the safety, the readiness, or the lives of American troops on the battlefield. Their true objective is unmistakable: to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military. That is unacceptable. As President Trump stated on Truth Social, the Commander-in-Chief and the American people alone will determine the destiny of our armed forces, not unelected tech executives. Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles. Their relationship with the United States Armed Forces and the Federal Government has therefore been permanently altered. In conjunction with the President's directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic's technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service. America’s warfighters will never be held hostage by the ideological whims of Big Tech. This decision is final.

English
0
0
0
61
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
Si querés popularidad se oficialista. Si querés tener razón se opositor. En argentina todo siempre termina invariablemente mal, y el baticinio del fracaso es pura haragañería del intelectual
Español
0
1
2
34
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
Hay alguna manera que mi TL de X deje de mostrarme posteos antisemitas? Compartí el video del fuego en la patagonia y ya tengo un profiling antisemita en el algoritmo
Español
0
0
0
37
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
Decadas construyendo soberanía y democracia hoy parecen haber sido en vano. Pero el progreso ya se cortó desde el 2013 en venezuela. Todos lo que se podía haber hecho para evitar esto no se hizo.
Español
0
0
0
37
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
6. Luego de décadas volvemos a tener una potencia extranjera invadiendo sudamerica. Desde franceses en Guyana, Británicos en Malvinas a Yankis administrando Venezuela ahora.
Español
1
0
0
42
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
Pensamientos en voz alta: 1. Por criticar al imperialismo yanki te tildaban de conspiranoico. Hoy el discurso de Trump mostró algo que muchos negaron. La invasión es por los recursos naturales y evitar la des-dolarización. Lo de Maduro narco fue un tecnicismo legal yanki
Español
1
0
0
55
Seradedios
Seradedios@serasdedios·
El derecho internacional que estaba en terapia intensiva hoy fue hallado muerto
Español
0
0
0
27
Legacy (Fan)
Legacy (Fan)@LegacySiu·
Guess the Goalscorer Level: Impossible
English
21.9K
1.2K
23.7K
4.2M
Legacy (Fan)
Legacy (Fan)@LegacySiu·
Guess the Goalscorer Level: Impossible
English
30.6K
1.7K
32.8K
9.1M