To be clear, the parliamentarian is only an advisory role, they don't get to rule or decide anything, only offer guidance which senators then choose to listen to. But they could ignore it (and have done so in the past) or can fire the parliamentarian and pick a new one which is more likely to advise in the way that they want (and have done so in the past.)
I think he's off base. There are lots of places on the internet I could go to where the users are anonymous and the conversations are frequently about sacred subjects. In this sense they would be considered 'lively' but to me they are also boring because they are all alive in exactly the same way. It's the same sacred cows being slain the same way, day after day after day. I think real liveliness doesn't come from avoiding social sanction per se, I think it comes from the interaction of different viewpoints in some sort of measured fashion (ie no one viewpoint overwhelms) and important that will include some degree of social sanctioning. But even that liveliness doesn't survive long because it's very uncomfortable. One side always overwhelms the other and when I see posts like this (there's lots of them) it always feels like the true reasoning underneath is: "if my ideas were considered fairly in a marketplace of ideas they would win and overwhelm." So no one is really seeking liveliness, just a boringness that they happen to agree with.
Without defending their wording, I think the absolute best case for nationalizing a firm is one where the industry is based off of natural resources, vital to the public in the short term, and detrimental to the public in the long term.
I don't know, did Wolfram Alpha end homework problems for Calc 1? Not really, because it's useful practice for the test you will probably take. Pointless essays will be diminished but for stuff like AP English exams, where you have to sit down, read a passage then write an essay analyzing it, essay-writing is still the most useful homework. If anything, I think it just enables a larger gulf between those who know and those who don't. I knew plenty of people who in my HS Calc class used Wolfram to do all their homework and then flubbed the tests. I also knew kids who did the homework the way the teacher intended and then I knew some of us who used Wolfram as a way to get unblocked. I see that as more where these language models fit in. Not that never again will a high school student have to write a dumb essay, but never again will a smart kid writing a dumb essay be stuck with writer's block staring at a blank page. Run GPT, generate 1000 words, read, start stealing and rephrasing and reworking until you get back in the flow.
I mean certainly some of it is social contagion but what kicked off the contagion? I feel like in an article talking about why tech is laying people off surely interest rates should at least appear as a possible reason.
I don't think it's a success story when a chemical company is pressured to stop producing something because of it's health effects after that chemical has made it into the blood of nearly every individual on the planet.
Ah, that's what I get for just backing out and not scrolling to the bottom. At the same time though, ugh. I think this is probably where real world usecases of GPT are going but taking something a human expressed concisely and then using a machine to blow it out with a bunch of filler is the opposite of what I want LLMs to enable.
So 4 counts on wire fraud and then also commodities fraud, securities fraud, money laundering and campaign finance laws. For the moment, if we set aside whether these will be proven, how bad does a stack of charges like this look for him if they are proven?
I've seen this going around my circle and found it very interesting. What I don't have though is a very useful basis for comparison. I'm curious if anyone here knows of any previous attempts at alternatives to back propagation? I think it'd be useful to me to understand better why backprop has withstood the test of time.
It's been coming out that he donated lots to them too so I guess we'll see. My impression overall though is that he will end up in jail, it's just going to take a while for everyone who received his money to come to terms with the scale of his fraud.
I don't think the way you've phrased it can possibly be true. I would assume whether you have ADHD or not an amphetamine is going to raise your heart rate.
I don't think it's an accident that a principal at a real estate firm thinks the way to get people back in the office is to give them a lot more square footage lol. But more seriously, I think if you really think being in the office is important (usually for mentorship reasons) then the most important things are to figure out how to make hybrid work.
Read this yesterday and absolutely loved it. Especially feel the pain regarding working with management. I think there's an accountability that comes with evaluating management decisions with data that nobody really wants. I still have a lot of half-formed thoughts/opinions about this but it really feels like data-driven requires strict discipline but the data people who would be accountable for that discipline both 1. aren't empowered to wield it and 2. probably don't want to wield it anyways.
Also agree about the simple tools but it's really hard from a career perspective. If I deploy XGBoost in production and put it on my resume, I'm making double my salary next year. If I can find a simple ruleset or linear regression that performs 90%+ as well as the XGBoost and put it in production then nobody cares even though it feels like distilling the complex down to the simple is really where the value is.
Haha yes, my parents put a password to keep me from playing WoW on the family computer. When I used ophcrack to get the password they were mad (but I think a little impressed.)
>And not announcing this rule before the match starts.
I don't think there's a possible way to more clearly announce a rule than declaring it in a parameter -> friendlyPassOk=true.
>It's like playing stockfish, but with a rule that says in a theoretical drawn endgame, you lose if the king does not end on a corner square
The king-in-the-corner rule, is that a rule normal humans play chess with? If so, I would expect Stockfish to handle it. In this case they're just setting the Go rules to match the ruleset that lots of humans play with.
I don't know, I think it's probably the most interesting question you can ask. As these domain-specific superhuman AIs roll out, the most important thing to know is when/how you can take it out of distribution and beat it. Or, in non-competitive cases, how to monitor it for these edge-cases, how to use humans to supplement it, etc.
1. If it's too hard to come up with an objective benchmark for AGI then we should rethink what it is we're doing talking about progress toward that's goal.
2. You could also rework this list and say that an AI which can fulfill three tasks even badly is one step forwards. An AI which can fulfill three tasks from three separate categories is another step, etc. But I think it's a categorical mistake to count progress in specific AI as progress in general AI, there's not a very good reason to believe they are in a continuum with one another.
It wouldn't even have to be a language model, just some sort of meta program that handled the switchboarding, as it were, between subsystems would be enough. But my real point is just more narrow, you can't measure progress to artificial general intelligence with a list of tasks satisfied by artificial specific intelligence. You have to measure the generalness directly. And thats also why I don't think you'd have to fulfill the list. Plenty of people suck at poker and golf and talking philosophy. People mistake the generalness of AGI for something like 'smarter than humans' but it's totally reasonable for there to be an artificial general intelligence which sucks at chess, just like a lot of people.
>Should land owners be obligated to lower the price to $0.25 so that this teenager can buy the property with a coin he finds on the street?
Wouldn't a reality where land is only held by those using it and you can buy land for a quarter be better? I don't even mean to be funny or anything but that seems like a much better situation that our current one.
The already placed checkmarks are wrong. An AGI by this list would be able to beat humans at chess and win an art competition, both of which are already checked off. But the chess playing AI and the art competition AI are completely separate systems, the art AI can't win a game at chess, it doesn't know a single thing about chess and it's never going to and vice versa. By this checkmark logic you could complete the whole list with one specialized neural net for each task and, while that would be an absolutely quantum leap in technology and the ramifications for the world, it still wouldn't be AGI. I know he discusses this at the beginning to say that computers can win at chess without being general but then the idea of generalness is basically just left there. Items should only be checked off when one system is capable of completing both tasks.
>While I do agree that property needs maintenance, why would a landlord pay somebody to occupy their property? What's the incentive to own the property at all then?
To live in or use? That seems like a way better situation!
Haha, the next layer will be a sweater for pedestrians that tricks computer vision systems into thinking you're a stop sign. Probably wouldn't be that hard even.
> Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own employees.
It has always been a them-vs-us situation. It's just that 'them' (management/ownership) have been in a hugely advantageous position for a while and so were able to exercise their power discretely. Now that economic circumstances have tipped slightly in favor of laborers, 'they' have to exercise their power in ways that are more obvious.
Sidenote: how come when a police officer does something and gets fired for it, the headlines always state 'ex police officer?' The headline reads to me as if he was not a police officer at the time of the offense but the article reads as if he was. It feels confusing on purpose.
One thing I think the article maybe misses. I love playing Civilization but when I play, I rarely win militarily, or in fact, at all. Instead I just build up and up and up until my winning feels like a foregone conclusion and then I quit and start a new game. Building up and up and up is fun. But actually building a huge military and marching it through my enemies and taking over is really slow and kind of a slog actually.
I see a similar dynamic going on online, over on twitter and stuff. I think many people think those people who enter their online filter bubbles and rarely leave do so because they know their worldview is fragile or they're afraid to be proven wrong or whatever but actually it's primarily just that being inside the filter bubble and slowly building an argument that you just know will crush your enemies is really fun and actually leaving the bubble to go do that crushing isn't that fun, it's kind of a slog actually.
Anyways it points to at least one technological mitigating factor, which is that the engagement with those opposite you needs to be gamified in a similar way to make it more appealing to more people. Going on twitter or reddit and openly disagreeing with someone inside their bubble means I'm likely to soon be arguing with about 12 different people who all disagree with me, often in different ways (very unfair/unfun to fight on a dozen fronts) or going 30 comments deep with someone (you can never actually win so there is no reward.) I think technology has found a lot of easy wins in creating engagement by building bubbles but all the things we really want to do with those bubbles - merge them, pop them, slowly dissipate them, transplant them, etc. still remain unsolved problems.
And since the article asked: 1. T 2. T 3. F 4. F 5. IDK/C 6. F 7. F