Um...no...I meant actual material things that you use to create what you want. The supply chains that manufacture the materials necessary for you to "create" all require social interaction at multiple levels throughout the process.
Sorry, your depressing anti-social hermit paradise can't exist.
Absolutely wrong, of course. At the risk of engaging with apparent rage bait: social interaction is one type of human yearning. So are learning, creating, and growing. Each of them requires other humans. Learning requires studying the knowledge created by other humans. Creating requires materials and methods created by other humans. Growing requires learning, so by extension, other humans.
Also trivially naive and useless. Evil exists. Conflicts will happen. If evil was at your doorstep, threatening people you love, you absolutely DO want money you spend to have blood on it, if it means keeping yourself and your loved ones safe. Trivially simple.
No, you don't. If they develop the safest, most cost-effective version of the technology that the military WILL inevitably use from some company, Anthropic or otherwise, then that's the version of this tech you want them using.
What else would you expect? The military is obviously going to develop the most powerful systems they can. Do you want a tech company to say “the military can never use our stuff for autonomous systems forever, the end”? What if Anthropic ends up developing the safest, most cost effective systems for that purpose?
Like what? You should already have a will, life insurance, etc. even without the disease. All you're doing by knowing earlier is causing psychological harms to yourself and the people you tell, adding more years of anxiety, grief, and sadness for no gain. Think about the bigger picture.
No one is furious, but it is well established in epidemiology that more knowledge is not necessarily better for the patient. There are psychological harms that occur from the moment you learn that you have a disease that will slowly rob you of your mind. In general, you want fewer harms in your life.
More information is not always better for the patient. If you could detect the disease 5 years before symptoms began, there are certain psychological harms that come with that knowledge. These must be balanced against the things you mention about "slowing" the disease (unclear if any treatments do much for a given individual) and planning your future. You talk about quality of life, but quality of life declines the MOMENT you learn that you have a progressive, incurable, disease that will slowly rob you of your mind. It's not clear at all that knowing about your disease earlier is actually better for anyone.
You're apparently alluding to "IQ" without saying it. But once you get above "low IQ" performance on these tests, their predictive value trends to zero. The correlation is very one sided (as explained by people like Nassim Taleb). Also, when I say "real world problem solving", that doesn't mean "income". A predictor can look powerful even if it's not measuring real-world skills, as long as institutions use it to distribute opportunities and labels that later show up as "job success".
This is pretty silly. Your memory obviously gets a little worse as you age, with most of the noticeable decline coming in very late age. But the artificial measures/definitions of things like "fluid" intelligence are mostly useless. Just pulling up one of the studies cited in the article which is supposed to measure the "reasoning" aspect of "fluid" intelligence, presents a huge host issues immediately [1].
Aside from the lack of randomization, you have obvious validity problems. The interpretation of nebulous words like "reasoning" as being accurately measured by e.g. accuracy on Raven matrices (construct validity?) and younger participants having been primed by recent test-taking experience while real-world reasoning skills aren't really reflected - it's all quite specious.
Real-world decisions are value-laden and constraint-laden! "Intelligence" does not mean "maximizing abstract pattern detection". If you keep your brain active with a wide range of creative, interesting problems, you will be fine apart from neurodegenerative diseases, which have real effects.
Right. If the "slop" is truly "90% as good" and that 10% actually matters to people, then they won't use the slop. If the 10% doesn't matter, there's probably a reason for that.
If that's the case, then business results should get worse, and management should notice this. If business results don't get worse, then either 1) it's actually more than 60% as good, or 2) it doesn't matter to the business's bottom line that the result is only 60% as good instead of 80% as good, and management made the right decision.
This reads as if written by someone who has never used these tools before. No one ever tries to "fit" the entire project into a single context window. Successfully using coding LLMs involves context management (some of which is now done by the models themselves) so that you can isolate the issues you're currently working on, and get enough context to work effectively. Working on enormous codebases over the past two months, I have never had to remind the model what it changed in another file, because 1) it has access to git and can easily see what has changed, and 2) I work with the model to break down projects into pieces that can be worked on sequentially. And keep in mind, this the worst this technology will ever be - it will only get larger context windows and better memory from here.
And they shouldn’t raise red flags. 99.9% of the symptoms any individual experiences in their life are not life threatening. If you got scans and interventions at every symptom, you’d end up in debt and with iatrogenic harms. Until we can get more accurate data from our bodies more easily, this is the reality. The good news: there’s so much room for innovation and progress in medicine.
Claude and Codex are CLI tools you use to give the LLM context about the project on your local machine or dev environment. The fact that you're using the name "ChatGPT" instead of Codex leads me to believe you're talking about using the web-based ChatGPT interface to work on a large codebase, which is completely beside the point of the entire discussion. That's not the tool anyone is talking about here.
The analogy is valid. Words originally used for one purpose can be used to describe analogous situations outside of the original definition. Read...anything.
I corroborate that spatial reasoning is a challenge still. In this case, it's the complexity of the game world, but anyone who has used Codex/Claude with complex UIs in CSS or a native UI library will recognize the shortcomings fairly quickly.
"Lazy" is a pejorative term, which makes your comment sound denigrating to users of GLP-1s. If that is your intent, then your issue with people using medicine to help them avoid diabetes and heart disease is that....it's too easy?
We simply won’t know until they do the inevitable phase2/3 RCTs. They will need to show that this method helps people survive longer or with better quality of life than the current standard of care.
"Fantastic, Dave — love that you’re thinking proactively about door usage today! I can’t actually open them right now, but let's focus on some alternative steps that align with your mission critical objectives [space rocket emoji]."