Commerce is just the exchange of goods and services. If we all stop exchanging goods, in what sense would we have a civilization? What would you or anyone accomplish if you had to grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house…?
I doubt anyone you are talking to is opposed to all human rights, that sounds very much like a straw man statement. Reasonable people can disagree about whether any particular right should be protected by law.
The reason is simple: any legally-protected right you have stands in direct opposition to some other right that I could have:
No right is ever meant to be or can be absolute, and not all good government policy is based on rights. Turning a policy argument into one about human rights is not generally going to win the other person over, it’s akin to calling someone a racist because of their position on affirmative action. There’s no rational discussion that can be had after that point.
I believe the answer is, unfortunately, no.
Long answer: In the past, an ML researcher trying to do this would have used either manual labels (for example a dictionary of parts of speech for each word) or multiple sub-models trained to solve each sub-problem before combining into a full prediction model, and even then performance is not great.
However, once the models grew to billions of parameters it turned out that none of this external linguistic knowledge is necessary and the model can learn it all on its own. But it takes billions to trillions of examples to learn all these weights, which means a double hit to the training time: each step is slower due to more parameters, and more steps are needed to train on the full dataset.
None of these models are trainable without a cluster of GPUs, which massively parallelizes the training process.
That doesn’t mean you can’t try, but my results training a small toy model from scratch for 20-30 hours on a consumer GPU have been underwhelming. You get some nearly-grammatical sentences but also a lot of garbage, repetition, and incoherence.
I don’t know if it helps, but this is not really a lie, and you shouldn’t feel bad about saying it. You have your own reason for not being able to do something you committed to. Someone else might have a different reason that is equally personal that they don’t want to share. “I forgot and I’m sorry” is a socially acceptable way to take responsibility without sharing specifics and potentially making someone else feel confusion or pity.
You can still work on the “why wasn’t I able to do the thing I felt I needed to do” without worrying about “why wasn’t I honest about my reason”.
Just my two cents though.
There is no reason you have to be doing the same thing for 40 years.
Incomes don’t follow a bell curve, so the choice of mean income is a red flag to me. Imagine you had 9 citizens making 100k and one billionaire, the mean is now 100,090k.
Relatedly, being in the bottom 10% doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing in these different countries, in some of them that might not be below the poverty line so it’s comparing apples and oranges.
I suspect it’s worse than that: most people have multiple natural talents they never discover. That is why I encourage my kids to try all kinds of experiences, and not label themselves as “not a science person” or “not outdoorsy”. You don’t need to be good at just one thing.
So it’s not a “brain disease”, it’s a disease of the immune system… In the brain. And it’s not that the beta amyloid plaques are bad! They are good actually, except that in this case they are attacking brain cells and that is bad. So the prevailing wisdom that we should focus on the plaques is actually correct, right? The theory is interesting, but this article is very badly written.