what do you mean?
9,560 karma · joined August 23, 2012
I didn't read the papers, and I am no specialist in any of the fields that guy meddles in, but it really does sound too good to be true. And if not, well, we're entering a new era of humanity right now.
What the hell is this tunnel thing, where you can query stuff from DNS? That makes no sense.
Now it’s a bit too late imo.
Intent and motivation are emergent phenomena. Why would it be unthinkable in AI?
Started smoking at age 11 (yeah Im French), gradually increasing to about a pack a day in my 20s. Reduced to about half a pack in my 30s. Did the vaping thing then, trying cold turkey a few times, without success. Then one day, I just didn't want to smoke anymore, stopped completely. (I was already smoking only half cigarettes for a while, cause I didn't like the feeling anymore). I didn't have urges to smoke at all for years, even when going out, getting drunk. Even with all my colleagues would go out for a cigarettes and I had to stay alone in a room.
Nowadays, I am in a situation where maybe once every two months I go to a party and I smoke a few cigarettes. Maybe over a weekend, I'd smoke a pack, then I don't smoke at all for another two months. If there is no party I don't smoke, if there's one, I may. I have zero urges the next days, I don't even think about it.
I think it's a question of age, maybe I don't go to that many parties anymore, maybe I don't feel the need to relax or to take a break anymore. I am 100% remote, live in the countryside, that might help compared to office work in a big city as I used to do.
I am not advising anyone to pick up smoking after years of stopping.
But I am writing this just to say that to me the usual things that people say about addiction weren't true at all:
- It wasn't difficult to stop (that last time, I'd already tried a few times before and failed). For some reason, it just happened that I didn't want to continue. I didn't have a date, I didn't have a "last cigarette then it's over" moment. I just didn't feel like smoking anymore. It also sort of happened gradually, first I didn't want to smoke entire cigarettes anymore, then I would stop smoking after half a cigarette.
- I smoked and vaped several times since, sometimes for several days in a row, sometimes at my house, I never felt I would go back to by a addicted smoker. My wife also does this, I can tell she's having a bit more of a hard time not smoking again, but she manages too, so I am not the only oddball here.
Not saying it's the best way to stop, quitting cigarettes has been proven to be very diffult. But GP branding those people as stupid is a bit harsh imo.
Vaping can be difficult to stop because:
- it's more accepted
- it's smoother on the throat, and there's plenty of tastes.
- there is no "dose", if you want to you can just vape non stop, and you can pace yourself. With a cigarette, you can't smoke slowly, or you'll loose half the cigarette.
All in all, it's just more convenient and cheaper to vape. If you're hooked, I can see it quite a challenge to stop. You can always say : "oh I am just taking x drags a day".
Personnally I didn't like vaping much, cause it was the beginning, the tastes were weird, the gear was not great battery-wise. So I kept going back to smoking. Eventually going cold turkey from cigarettes was way easier than through vaping.
If your goal is making small apps, websites, things that aren't too critical performance-wise, I don't think you should learn to code.
But code isn't disappearing. Calculation-heavy processes, large apps, video games, basically things that need a deep understanding of tradeoffs, still require a lot of human inputs.
Will it be always that way, I don't know. But I'd like to think AI won't totally kill the code, in the same way compilers didn't kill assembly dev.
Yes it makes you vulnerable to IP theft, and it does happen. But if you look for startup founding advice, people will tell you that it's a mistake to try and protect your idea. The main arguments are:
1. Execution matters more than the idea.
2. It's always better to get feedback / test the market earlier rather than later.
3. Your IP may be protected in theory, but in practice, companies infringe on patents all the time.
See for instance here:
https://daniellenewnham.medium.com/no-one-is-going-to-steal-...
or here:
https://www.talkingquickly.co.uk/2015/04/what-id-tell-myself...
Tbh your article is pretty poor. Your "framework" is what everyone on this planet does every day.
I guess the lesson for you is to realize that your wisdom nugget may annoy the shit out of your team.
If your product does not interest a lot of people, the patent is going to be useless, cause nobody will want to steal your idea.
If your product does interest a lot of people, some people may want to steal it, but:
- would you sue a Chinese company for selling copies of your stuff on AliExpress? How would you even sue that company?
- would you sue a major tech firm, while it's likely that anything that you built is likely infringeing on at least one of their patents?
- in the case you want sue, what are the odds of winning? Your patent may be void for a variety of reasons, and a copying product may not be considered as infringeing, if it has enough difference with the patented invention. What time frame are you looking at? 5 years, 10 years? Do you want to spend 10 years in litigations? What legal costs are you facing? Probably in the tens of thousands.
My advice to you as a failed startup founder myself, is to cool your head down, and stop imagining that what you invented is the next telephone, and pitch pitch pitch. If you pitch a room with 100 people, you'll be lucky if 2 guys come up to you at the end telling you your stuff is a good idea.
The patent is keeping you in a fantasy world, and that's not good.
You have 4 kids, there is no way you have that kind of time.
Regarding the patent: I know this is going to sound harsh, but what is likely is that it's going to be harder to find someone who finds your invention cool than to defend against anyone who might want to steal it.
Patents defend technical inventions useful in the industry, a social media gizmo not so much. Filing a patent will take a lot of time, and you won't have the money to litigate anyone who steals it anyways.
In your position, I would just throw the idea out there, make a kickstarter campaign or something. Try and get anyone interested. If there is interest, then it's easier to find a cofounder who might want to be in with you on this.
There is a good chance that the kickstarter result is a giant "meh" from the world. And you can go back raising your children and chase that GS15 (Idk what that is).
Also if you do this just to scratch your own itch, build the stuff just for yourself (LLMs and 3D printers make everything quite simple these days), and post a youtube video about it.
Anyways my take is:
- you need a cofounder to launch something
- but you need to validate the idea before finding a cofounder.
also don't be greedy with your cofounder, split 50 50 or close to that, it may be your idea, but you can't do it without the other person.
That said, I personally don’t think it’s smelly at all.
and in many case the accumulator is a tuple, and in many cases you need to know the length of the collection ( like average)
all in all, it’s a lot just to avoid a for loop.
I imagine launching anything from space to earth would be highly inefficient and inaccurate. So it must be space to space.
Space to space weapons are what? Small drones with an explosive charge? I guess that could work. These "combats" are going to be weird, because the objects are trapped in their orbits. Things are going to move very slowly with a lot of intertia.
Waiting eagerly for the "crying baby" extension pack. The "get to your seat" MMO. And the "I want to pee, but the guy next to me is sleeping" campaign.
Also, inflightsimulator: 1980, with ashtrays and lethal weapon playing on dropdown TV sets
Open weights agents with hacking capacities can reproduce themselves into the systems they hack (non-open weights ones will have to hack their creators first). Not saying they will, but if they do, good luck finding the kill switch.
Once swarms of agents run unsupervised on unmonitored hacked hardware, who can tell what they will do? The Huggingface incident showed that such swarms behave without any safeguard. It was a real HAL moment.
A lot of things are possible then: ransomware campaign, taking over IoT devices, self driving cars, planes, ships, satellites, missile launchers. If nothing's out of reach, everything is possible.
Bring robots into the mix, and the possibilities are endless.
I'm not particularly frightened tbh, but we shouldn't discard the worst-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario doesn't look good.
I mean many Japanese people consider that pouring tea can be an art form.
Zuckerberg is never resigning from Meta. Investors don't want him to resign from Meta.
What it is time for, though, is to ask ourselves as a society if the ad-fueled privacy-infringing depression-triggering attention-grabbing social media feeds are worth it.
People used to smoke. Now they dont. Change is possible.