A network of fully autonomous electric self-driving cars on a developed roadway can only be superseded in efficiency by high speed rail. There is no way that traditional forms of public transit could outclass it. This is Waymo's big moneymaker: public contracts. The bus drivers and taxi drivers unions will fight it, but smaller towns looking to build denser housing and make their public spaces more walkable will happily adopt this as policy, and it will eventually spread to the bigger cities.
I think LLMs will continue to improve in the capabilities which they are demonstrably good at, but there are many things which they are not good at which it is not cost effective or meaningful to improve, and in these areas we will not consider them “intelligent,” in the same way that we don’t consider computers “intelligent” but do find them very good at doing wrote calculations.
I spent a lot of time in Europe after graduating college. I thought I wanted to move there, I enjoyed the peacefulness of a daily life and people who were concerned for the general welfare of society over an above profits.
Then I came to California. For a woman! I've long since broken up with her, but perhaps I stayed for the tacos and the sunset. And that the American west is still both deluded and guided by its founding myth of the cowboy: don't like the way things are done around here? Do it yourself, form your own posse...certainly, if there is one thing that people in Europe complain about, its the rigidity of social life. The author talks about a flat hierarchy but Germans are funnelled into castes even before they graduate high school.
There is freedom in America, but it is an open field, empty and full of despair. You are alone: the state does not care if you get sick, the state does not care if you can't get a job, the state does not care if you find your life meaningless. You can always head west, there is always an environment more unforgiving, an emptiness more vast and unfathomable, formless from the outset but given shape within a tragic struggle, one that few ever overcome. And any overcoming is only a temporary victory, and all your triumphs will fall like Ozymandias, left to dry rot in the craggily rocks and creosote bushes that make up the wasteland of American progress. Even with all those abandoned trailers sitting forlorn, the weak still venture forth thinking that they will defy the odds. One more bone on the desert floor. But at least I have the delusion!
And one day, when I'm long gone, and my wealth has been donated to worthy causes, and my kids and even their kids sit on the boards of philanthropic organizations, they will make a biopic about me, and it will be mediocre, and the actor who plays me will be far more attractive than I ever was, and it will get every detail about my life wrong. Then I will have won--and, consider this, Germans: in your country, the only person they ever make the subject of a biopic is Hitler! I think Steve Jobs is a little better than Hitler...
I agree that it's a bit reductionist to boil this down entirely to "Christian Apologetics," I think you'd have to do some serious rationalizations to see how the notion of human finitude, time as the limit of cognition, is not originally a Christian notion, or at least is not informed by secular interpretations of theology such as the first place where this claim is made, Being and Time. Which is even more interesting because even Heidegger moved away from time as binding finitude and eventually came to the position that cybernetics would replace philosophy, that fundamental ontology would not withstand technological advancement.
Anyone who works in "red teaming" or has experience breaking AI systems will be able to easily disable these tools in the service of oppressive regimes, or even figure out how to "fight fire with fire."
I don't know if its something that we will be able to measure precisely or at least in aggregate at first since the positives will only come about in the long term. Anecdotally, all my recent trips to the doctor have basically been as follows:
1) Give some (frontier) model my symptoms, circumstances, etc.
2) Model outputs a list of possible causes, some more urgent than others
3) If its not something benign, I go to a doctor
4) Doctor orders blood work, checks me up, and I discuss possible diagnoses with them.
Around 60-70% of the time the model was correct about the illness, the doctor just confirms it with empirical evidence. This means that I am able to pretty effectively triage myself, saving me a considerable amount of time.
Now its already the case that the role of doctors is diminishing in medical practice, and Nurse Practitioners are performing the majority of the same work. Armed with AI tools, Nurse Practitioners are effectively at the same level of skill and knowledge as an actual MD, and we would need far less MDs, then to do medical care, reserving them for specialty cases, expertise where AI tends to fail. So there is both more room for particular and intricate medical research and care for the most stubborn conditions, and more capacity for care in general.
In the long run, this will lead to improved outcomes, greater cognitive and physical health, and lower costs for child rearing. All of this is an economic boon. And all of it will not be apparent in the numbers for decades. I believe this is the case for the majority of the processes that AI is improving.
I think it makes sense that historically American film focused on narrative based dramas and slow burn horror. Think of classic Hollywood hits such as Citizen Kane and Psycho. This is even apparent in the recent success of Obsession, which really follows strongly in the trend of Hitchcock, magical realism, human drama, psychological horror.
Compare this with historically successful Honk Kong films: Kung Fu Hustle, Police Story, Ip Man. I mean there are examples of Hong Kong films that are slow burn human dramas, like Chungking Express and Eat Drink Man Woman, and successful American action films like Diehard, but I think its clear that Hollywood film didn't start out with action movies, and Hong Kong film didn't start out with slow burn dramas, but adopted these genres afterwards; you could even claim that successful Hong Kong films like the Bruce Lee films of the 70s fueled the American appetite for action in the 80s, which was the most prominent era for that genre in the US.
As a corollary to this, it becomes clear that the Korean and Japanese film making industries are not as culturally distinct from Hollywood as Honk Kong film making is. For Korean film, the reason is obvious: Koreatown in Los Angeles is right next to Hollywood, in some respects is a part of Hollywood, and there are deep ties now between the Korean and American film making industries for that reason, and Korean-Americans have an overly high degree of representation in American media, and Korean productions often come to America to shoot (think of the end of Squid Games: it's almost certainly the case that they shot in LA because a producer has a cousin or something that works in Hollywood).
No I mean of course, I thought Kumamoto was very nice and I especially enjoyed visiting Mt Aso, I was lucky enough to see into the crater and hike around the peaks
Kumamoto is barely finished rebuilding from the last quake, you can still see cracks in structures as you drive down the road. This is really horrible; not to mention the city is already beginning to depopulate as the youth move north to Fukuoka.
I think that if you compare American sentiment with Chinese sentiment you'll see that these people are really not acting in their own favor. Well, in a certain sense they are, because these companies will basically become massive institutions that share no wealth with the public and have no accountability, but in another sense they are not because without this infrastructure the US will certainly be at risk for invasion and attack by other nations, and will lose its monetary power and thus its high wages and overall global dominance. But then the issue becomes: how do we force these companies to share more wealth with the public, how do we ensure the resources are being utilized effectively and not starving or otherwise impoverishing people for the sake of profit; not, how do we stop the infrastructure from being built in the first place! The Chinese don't have this issue primarily because 1) they have a shit load of energy already, and 2) the CCP is happy to liquidate any individual that seeks personal benefit ahead of that of society as a whole, or at least the CCP itself. And the CCP has well demonstrated to the Chinese people, at this point, that if you follow them you will become wealthier. But that still means that the issue is the public conversation in the US around data centers, and that this propaganda is NOT fighting for American's benefit in any case, since having less infrastructure is not good for anyone. I am sure you can find some remote village in Africa without electricity and try and convince them that electrical lines kill birds that they hunt, and since they've never had electricity before (but they've eaten lots of birds), they'll rally against it. I see virtually no difference between that and your average American right now, except that the Americans are at least conscious enough of the extractavist enterprise which the technologically superior peoples from afar (SFO) are promising will bring wonders. And yet, India still has a more comprehensive rail network than, say, Australia; you can't tell me that isn't a strong factor in their rapid economic development.
I believe the Russians and Chinese recognized this years ago, which is why they are using their propaganda machines to make Americans hate datacenters.
The technology is too hard to capitalize on. It’s far more democratic than, say, an iPhone, or a search engine. Anyone can download a model to their computer and start toying with it, how do you profit off of that? Even if everyone was constantly tokenmaxxing (which we cannot, since the process gets fucked up if you let it run entirely on its own), it probably still wouldn’t be marginally profitable.
Yes but, AI can still be used for relatively common applications (coding basic pages), and furthermore you can build agentic loops to check more difficult code, or explain the conceptual order of the code, and I imagine over time the domains which will be considered “basic” for the AI will continue to grow, but perhaps so will the abilities of its users…
I think that absolute numbers in specific cities don't tell the full story. NYC also has far fewer people with college degrees than SFO, which would correlate more strongly with Trump supporters. I think that if you polled those who voted against Trump in NYC now, and asked them about their opinions on AI, you'd find they diverge significantly from those who did vote for him, whereas if you asked the same question to Trump voters and non Trump voters in SFO they would answer pretty much the same. SFO is also in California which does not have the same cultural relationship with technology as NYC or much of the Northeast, although the culture I'm describing stretches basically all over the east coast.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Its not the case that more people voted for Trump in a place where more people are taking reverse psychological cues from him, but precisely the opposite case, the more people take reverse cues the less vote for him, which implies their positions are on account of reaction and not because they are genuinely reflecting on their social and political condition, which would elevate them to conscious political actors rather than people following a trend because they are afraid of going against it.
I'm not sure why my experience differs from yours. When I was in the northeast recently I got into heated arguments with people, one person said they "hated Waymo" and refused to elaborate (but also said they used AI everyday for work), another said flat out that technology is evil, so I asked them if poor people should go without electricity. Then they restricted their argument to AI is evil, and that was a more nuanced (if not trite) debate, which they eventually conceded. But not without some gnawing and thrashing!
But I don't think that hating AI or technology or whatever to be contrary to Trump is a genuine political statement, its just reaction. It involves politics in the same way that everything we do involves politics, but it is not "consciously" political in the same way that a baby demanding care from an overworked mother is also not consciously political. Baby wants milk, your average liberal wants to feel self-righteous (they would honestly do better with the milk). Someone can claim anything they want is political, it does not mean they are doing it for genuinely political reasons, they are probably just doing it because they fear the censure of their friends and the dissolution of their social life. Not engaging with something because you are afraid of how it could harm you personally, consciously or no, is not an objective way of making a decision that effects society more broadly. Like, a baby will just die if it doesn't get milk, you won't necessarily die because some of your friends stop talking to you.
You have no idea, you must not know that they are afraid of Waymos out in the northeast, they think they are evil or something, I'm not even joking.
Anyway, I didn't say it was a political thing I said it was a cultural thing. The average liberal is not someone who thinks primarily in political terms, they are just going about their lives unreflectively and they genuinely believe in the moral weight of their feelings, which are their primary guide. Now, I'm not saying that human life is not generally composed of its daily concerns, which tend to rule us, but for the average liberal politics is no different from acting on basic urges; like a mouse chasing the next piece of cheese in a maze, they cannot see that no turn will ever lead to their escape; that so long as they continue to chase the very next thing, they are trapped in constraints that have been laid out for them in advance. Like the conservatives of the 80s, there is always one more moral panic, one more thing that you're supposed to be upset about, one more cause to fight for. There is no stopping to think why this is something that is supposed to upset me, why is this something that needs to change. They are not able to go just one step beyond common opinion and wonder why there are so few avenues for them in the first place, they are not able to question why the maximum content of their decisions is good or evil, just or unjust, left or right. Yes any decision is binary, but one must be able to choose that for themselves, be able to consider the decision to leave the maze, even if they are, in the end, no more powerful than all the other rats, and there might not be any cheese outside of it; and there might be no end to the maze, and even very far from what you thought was the exit lay the bodies of those who attempted to leave before.
But anyway this is what I mean by primarily cultural. Liberals "drink matcha," go to running clubs, obsess over "consent" (they now have a term "weaponized consent," how absurd! that they are just realizing now that consent is always given within certain relations of power...) Whatever politics they have is on the same plane, they are doing it because its something to be done. Someone who thinks primarily in terms of politics, that is, in terms of the social dynamics of power, would never call themselves a liberal.
No, because most people in say, California, which is very pro-tech, are perfectly fine with AI. But people in the Northeast are angry at it. It’s entirely cultural.
Perhaps I should have specified Anti-AI. Its just the thing that upsets me the most about your everyday liberal professional, how much they hate AI just because Trump is pro AI
Well the difference is that different vowels can signify not only different cases or declensions but even different words entirely in afroasiatic languages. So, yes, missing vowels means that the edition that does have vowels (developed in the 10th century I believe) is a particular interpretation of the work.
Yes this makes a lot of sense, if I recall correctly the first grammar of Telegu was written in Sanskrit, and many South India languages use a lot of Sanskrit words, but of course they are not intelligible if you don't know the grammar.
Biblical Hebrew has no vowel markings (well it does, but they are an interpretation), so it cannot be used in daily speech. Modern Hebrew is distinct from Biblical Hebrew. Sanskrit itself does not have much use as an actual language because it lacks a lot of the features that, say, Hindi or English or Ancient Greek have, it has 7 past tenses that are basically identical and it does not make fine distinctions between moods, which it does not have enough of. Only Vedic Sanskrit could actually be used as a language, but similarly to Ancient Greek there are relatively few extant texts in Vedic Sanskrit and certainly the task of learning the language to fluency would be monstrous compared to studying a living language; and one that few, if any, would be willing to devote their life towards, especially considering that Classical Sanskrit already works fine enough as a literary language and is only so practical for that purpose because it has such a strictly defined grammar.