I completely agree. But this has been true for many years. This sort of head in the sand compartmentalization seems to be a core feature of the culture here.
I think this "Mythos" situation, whether real or hype, points to the endgame here. Eventually, when you have a model powerful enough to have big consequences in the world, you stop worrying about selling it to consumers and start either a) using it to rule the world or b) watch as it gets nationalized. If you have a machine powerful enough to automate everything, why sell access to it when you could just...be all things to all people? Use the god machine yourself to take over more and more of the economy?
My wonder isn’t why he is doing this, it’s more why everyone else is t doing the same? Are we all that sure we know what happens to the stock market when the government collapses?
A library of documentation (nearly 1 million high res images and documents) of recent contemporary art exhibitions from all over the world. Free to the public, operated as a small non-profit.
Security companies? Seems like a lot of people would pay to have this on a dock in the back of their house checking their property every so often. A lot of camera systems are sold and this could replace a lot of permanently positioned cameras. Could respond to requests if something comes up, avoid being swatted down etc.
Not only that—anyone who's ever tried to have FaceTime sex knows that the only video they would capture is of your face watching porn... it's not like they can see your body unless you're specifically placing your phone in order to show it to someone else (which is actually kind of challenging and definitely nothing like how you'd use your phone to watch porn). They're basically threatening to send pictures of your "O face" which really wouldn't be that embarrassing at all to me, at least.
As a disabled person, I admit to being made slightly uncomfortable by the uncritical framing of genetically modified people as "therapy" that all people should want. Where is the line between "gene therapy" to eliminate differences (such as deafness) and eugenics? If we have statistics that taller people have better outcomes in life, should we do gene therapy to make sure everyone is taller than 6'? How much diversity of human experience is too much?
Obviously, there are easy cases: this kind of technique to prevent conditions leading to abject suffering, for example. But, knowing and admiring deaf people makes me unsure about the idea of "curing" deafness, for example, as a goal of medicine.
“We understand the concerns expressed and are committed to finding a resolution that puts the interests of our users and the American public as our top priority.”
They should sell it or spin it off or whatever and make statements commensurate with that.
Two more small pieces of feedback, in case they're useful:
- Consider a time-based free trial. As others have said, tokens are confusing, but also your model is unlimited so the chunk of tokens doesn't allow me to see what it might be like to actually use your product. I'm more than halfway through my tokens after writing an HN comment and a brief todo list for work, so I've been able to see what it'd be like to pay the $10 for about 5 minutes worth of work, which feels like a very short trial. A week, say, seems fair? And then you have some kind of cap on tokens that only comes up if someone uses an abusively huge amount (an issue, I'm sure, you'd face with paying customers too, right?)
- I had a bit of trouble with making a todo list—I kept wanting the system to do a "new line" or "next item" and show me a new line with a dash so I know I'm dictating to the right place, but I couldn't coax it into doing that for me. I had to sort of just start on the next item and then use my keyboard to push return. When making lists, it's good to be able to do so fluidly and intentionally as much as possible. Sometimes it did figure out, impressively, that long pauses meant I wanted a new line. But not always.
Thanks for all your hard work! Even, as a start, I found myself asking the app to copy the text to the clipboard for me without even thinking. Might be nice to be able to do that more seamlessly, just as a start?
You've moved us all a lot closer to my dream: taking a long walk outside, AirPods in, and handling the day's email without even looking at a screen once.
This is so cool! Great work. I'm writing this comment using Aqua Voice, and it's very impressive. I've been waiting for something like this. As a neurodivergent person, certain tasks (cough, email, cough) are about 10 times harder sitting down at my computer than they are handling them aloud with my assistant.
I'm sure you get this feedback 100 times a day, but I'd gladly pay a substantial amount to use this in place of the system dictation on my Mac and iPhone. Right now, the main limitation to me using it constantly would be the endless need to copy and paste from this separate new document editor into my email app or into Notion or Google Docs, etc.
Longtime HN poster here, asking for your help on the eve of the 15th anniversary of my first project, which has since grown into a tiny non-profit organization. Our goal is simple: to organize, preserve, and make accessible the art history of our time via online archives of exhibition and performance documentation. We've collected nearly 700,000 images, documents and videos and archived them rigorously. They're all free to the public at contemporaryartlibrary.org. People who are doing research into contemporary art know us and use the website, and we're already the top resource for this kind of information by a mile. Our sites were used around 6 million times last year, and we're already above that for 2023.
We have the rust and support of artists and art spaces and have access to a massive amount of incredible documentation. But we're too small to be able to do the work of gathering it, organizing it, uploading it, and then hunting for missing material. Our limiting factor is archivist hours, basically. So: we're trying to learn how to more properly fundraise despite not knowing many wealthy people directly. We're doing oru best within the art world, but it occurred to me that our idea board member/supporter is probably a young-ish tech person of means who understands the power of the internet as a means of providing access to knowledge and who likely has some pre-existing interest in contemporary art and would like to learn more about it.
So: how does one network within the "tech world" to find people with a specific interest? How do I go about meeting people who might be in a position to help us (ie. routinely need tax deductions in substantial amounts) and are interested in contemporary art or artists generally?
Any specific or process ideas would be gratefully appreciated! We're a 501c3 tax deductible non-profit based in California but providing our services to people around the world.
I've seen this sentiment repeated ad nauseam since this morning, but I can't fully understand it. The comparison isn't between Vision and full presence. Imagine watching the same video with Dad pointing his phone at everyone instead. The days of experiencing things worth remembering with full presence are already over for most people—this isn't any worse than pointing a big opaque block at the person. Either way, there's a barrier. At least this way we can see their eyes to some extent, right?
My doctors have always said that losing weight too quickly results in the metabolization of one's muscles and other important, healthy tissue in addition to fat. Could it be that crash dieting works narrowly to solve, for example, diabetes via the loss of fat, but has other negative consequences for the body? Maybe it's not a "doesn't work" thing, but a "collateral damage" thing or a "makes it harder to keep the weight off" thing, which is another old saw of why you shouldn't lose weight too fast?
Contemporary Art Library, a massive non-profit archive of documentation that will organize, preserve and make accessible the art history of our time[1]. How long that will take depends on the extent to which we can learn how to fundraise, but we already have more than 400,000 pieces of media (images, documents and video) documenting exhibitions, performances and other public artist activity from all over the world. If anyone knows any internet-friendly funders that might want to help accelerate our efforts, let me know! [2]
I created the organization, did the design and helped a colleague building the software. We've had more than 4 million visits from 300k+ users (distributed throughout the world, roughly in proportion to the interest in contemporary art in those countries) and continue to grow most months.
To be clear: we were talking about a "food forest," not the kind of row-based farm tractor in the video. I certainly agree that the kind of tractor in the video is simpler than the swarm units would be. But a giant tractor that can navigate a forest is a different matter entirely, no?
I guess it's true that the originally propose 1000 is an arbitrary number, and it would take some experimentation and work to figure out the ideal number of robots per acre to optimize whatever you care about most (yield, power consumption, maintenance costs being obvious contenders). But I think it's easy to say that literally one giant robot covering an entire edible forest is obviously going to be more inefficient and troublesome than a swarm of some size.
I guess I don't really understand your assumptions. Why would 1 massive machine capable of doing all the various tasks of managing this farm require less maintenance than 1000 presumably much simpler, smaller machines? Assuming other things besides mobility break, I don't think retrieval would be much more of an issue, or that we'd have reason to expect the failure rate to be higher for each smaller, simpler drone than for the giant, super-complex one. To get the same work done, the behemoth would have to move much faster, have many more specialize tools and sensors all in the same rig, and would not be swappable for regular maintenance without pausing the entire workflow. Small drones could go back to base in shifts (again with some margin of extra drones) so that there are always 1000 actively working.
I love this vision and hope it becomes the dominant telos for all of the work underway in this area. In addition to "beautiful farm," imagine a world where farms, parks, wildlife preserves, decarbonization centers, and biological research hubs are all the same place? No reason these swarms can't be optimizing/managing a native ecosystem food-forest with high yield in mind... and likewise easy to imagine unobtrusive, silent robots that don't stand in the way of the ecosystem's normal functioning.
This isn't intuitive to me. If one big tractor has a failure, the whole operation shuts down. If 1/1000 drones breaks, swap in a spare and move it to some kind (potentially automate-able) repair area. If the ideal number of drones is 1000 operationally, you just need to figure out how much of a margin of extra reserves you need to keep things operating. But even with a .1% lower capacity, you'd probably not notice anything, especially compared with 100% lower capacity.
Furthermore, with the right sensors, there's an opportunity for the swarm to self-correct without human intervention based on results. It doesn't have to be exactly right at the moment, because any ill effects will be noticeable and fixable well after a mistake is made.
He's not saying that they shouldn't be subject to coverage "with an investigative lens." He's talking about the adversarial, negative tone of the coverage, relating to the tech industry primarily as full of bad actors rather than a power center worthy of investigation that also does some good things, say. I don't think Yglesias would say we shouldn't investigate these companies, but rather that we should paint a more wholistic picture about both the good and bad contributions of these companies that better matches reality.
Why? Delusions can be fascinating, right? There's no contradiction between being curious about something and thinking it's delusional at the same time, right?
I'm curious what the (presumably delusional) for case for this is. Like, why would anyone think this would even be useful? Is it to combat crime? It says something vague in the article about "rider safety" but I don't really get that. What sort of incident would require hearing conversations between riders? Do they want this so that if one person verbally harasses another rider they can prove it? It just seems like the obvious ease with which this could be abused is even more stark put next to the uselessness of this to the people installing it...
Luckily that is readily available! The idea of these products is to prompt people to switch from bacon, not from mushrooms. I'm quite confident this is better for you (and the world, and certainly the poor tortured animals) than regular bacon.