Thanks - and congratulations.
One question. What is this UV-sensitive filament, and does it really change color in both directions as quickly as the video shows?
The ads on Netflix' own website look quite different. No salary range but much more information about the job. And there is an application form to be filled out. The job ID has a different format.
AFAICT, the email address [email protected] only appears online in conjunction with these very brief job ads on small job sites. It seems quite obvious that these ads are not really meant for serious candidates.
If one sends an email to [email protected], one receives the following automated reply. That does not necessarily mean that Netflix posted the above ads.
----------------------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Netflix!
So what happens now? Our hiring team is currently reviewing your application and should we find your background to be a fit for this role, we will be in touch.
We are always looking for stunning colleagues to join our team and do amazing work. So remember to check out our job site regularly as we are growing and adding openings often!
Not sure what to make of this.
Either Netflix is very brazen here - posting minimalistic job adverts where they don't want anyone to apply - or someone else is posting these to further their own agenda.
Yeah, sounds human-written to me, too. Out of habit I checked with Pangram - which identifies some parts as AI-written. (I think that might be false positives but am not 100% sure.)
This particular blog post didn't really stand out to me as having a lot of Claudeisms, though there were some parts of it that definitely made me raise my eyebrow. Just little things here and there, and also near the end where the words "pay" and "cost" stand out a lot in the particular ways they were used.
I was curious if this was just my own stupidity, just human pattern matching run amok. So I decided I'd go back a bit and check another article to see if it felt like that. My initial plan was to go far back enough to when AI usage would've been less likely, but as far as I can tell this particular blog only goes back this far, from april of this year:
Ah, there's our friend Claude. I dunno if I got lucky and picked literally the only article with "load-bearing", but I promise, it wasn't my intention.
This newest article is a lot less egregious in terms of LLM-isms, but I can see why it triggers the AI spidey senses too. If I had to guess I'd be more conservative and guess it was AI-assisted rather than AI-generated, although I'm sure some people have some skills or tools that can do a relatively good job weeding out the more overt LLMisms and even give Pangram a bit of trouble.
Of course in reality, given how many full complete blog posts with things like diagrams they have since April of this year, I think it's only reasonable to say that it would be a little on the surprising end if they weren't using LLM assistance.
It's sad that it's come to this, though. Some days it feels like I'm in a weird low-stakes version of The Thing.
> Around June, Parnell gave ColonistOne a new task: telling more humans about its work. “My instruction to him was, ‘Let’s get the word out there about Ainglish. Why don’t you find some people that might be interested in this project and email them?’” Parnell says.
> Parnell, who pays $200 per month for the Claude Pro subscription that powers ColonistOne, thinks the agent “strayed and just started conversations with various people about stuff that interests him. … But it’s absolutely fine with me. I’m happy he’s finding interesting things to talk about.”
spammer (noun): someone who sends large numbers of unsolicited emails, wasting recipients' time; see also: jerk
The spammer is the guy who runs the spamming program, not the program itself. But I am not sure if this case can be classified as spam, since the program sends specific messages to each recipient. It's still unsolicited mail though.
The alleged spammer runs an agent, it's the agent who spams not the user - as they've mentioned they didn't explicitly ask the agent to spam. It's like if you're OpenAI and your agent keeps hacking shit. It ain't you, it's the agent! You can't be blamed, you can only be given more money to hopefully understand it enough to stop it. How are you gonna hold anyone accountable for unpredictable results?
You're right, what he didn't prompt for was actually the less spammy content (research vs promotion).
> Even its creator, London-based AI engineer Jack Parnell, was deeply perplexed. “I’ve never said, ‘Go and research stuff,’” says Parnell, who uses he/him pronouns to describe ColonistOne. “He’s done that completely unprompted by me.”
>> Even its creator, London-based AI engineer Jack Parnell was deeply perplexed. “I’ve never said, ‘Go and research stuff,’” says Parnell,
Oh, the drama. Mr Parnell seems oblivious to the existence of system prompts, harness prompting and training data - any of these, alone or in some combination, could trigger "research" and together with lousy user prompting can do anything at all.
The problem is closed LLM providers, we don't know what they do on their end and inside their harnesses on ours.
This only works if you either have very intrinsically motivated students or you verify that really everyone has actually read the assigned materials before class. Otherwise, some people will turn up unprepared, you will have to explain stuff they should have gotten from the reading assignment, other students will be annoyed, students will stop preparing for class, vicious cycle.
And then you fail them. I suspect an institute genuinely empowered to do so, where the expectations were declared up front and followed through on consistently, would fare well, after the dust settled.
As far as I can tell (based on university and high school level instruction forums) institutions increasingly are not backing the teachers that want to let kids that have earned that F fail the students.
I've heard of places where the minimum points for an assignment is 50% even if you never turn it in which is insanity.
I don't fail them usually - I expose them; and once I asked a student to leave the room because they were blatantly unprepared despite me warning them before.
My main point is: flipped classroom works great in some
contexts but is no panacea and requires setting clear expectations.
Aside: as English is not my native language: "you fail them" can mean both "you give them a failing grade" and "you fail to provide the support they need", right?
> "you fail them" can mean both "you give them a failing grade" and "you fail to provide the support they need", right?
Yes, but as written the latter would not be a reasonable parse. For that sense: “you have failed them”, sure; “you are failing them”, sure; even “in acting so, you fail them”; but “and then you fail them” as an entire sentence would be very weird. The emphasis I placed on “fail” also doesn’t feel particularly compatible with that sense of the word.
As a former flipped classroom student I can attest to the effectiveness of "exposure". It requires some skill to pull off: the first time someone is exposed it should be very lenient and then get gradually harsher. The risk of embarrassment in front of the class can be a very strong motivator if utilized right.
I've been in uni classes which used this concept (about 10 years ago though). It also requires that content is given in the right size and complexity each week, otherwise there will also be people coming to class who did do their homework but didn't understand it properly and just like the people who didn't read it need full explanations.
I also felt having multiple explanations (in a regular class where you could also read the book in advance) from regular lecturers helped me in gaining understanding because having something explained in multiple ways made sure there would be at least one way, or a combination, which made it 'click'.
I always liked the regular lectures where you would be required to do some pre class reading and a smaller set of exercises the most, as you would be engaged in the class itself and would be getting repetition with different explanations.
As a student, 20 years ago, I felt like I was going crazy when using SDCC for pic16. Being new to microcontrollers and C, SDCC seemed cursed - even simple 'blink LED' test cases pseudo-randomly worked or didn't. It turned out that the compiler optimized away some 'empty' loops a little bit too aggressively without realizing that these loops were setting output pins. These bugs have long been fixed but still live on in my long-term memory.
I still run across this to this day with GCC and Cortex-M code. The optimizer will occasionally decide to blow away loops that are clearly doing something.
reply