10,944 karma · joined September 3, 2018
I care about people who think that just yelling "he's a racist" somehow scores them brownie points or does something about it. It doesn't. You're not brave, you're not noble, you're not accomplishing anything.
Dude, it's not 2021 anymore. You can't just yell a big, bold, name like racist and expect it to stick or cause any impact. Everyone got burned out in 2021 of the million -ists, and the 2024 election showed among other things that the name calling has zero effect.
The world belongs to those who can actually explain why any particular opinion is a bad thing, or conflicts with values that the reader may otherwise hold, not those who can accuse with a cheap label.
There used to be days when women would make blankets, when men would make chairs, when children would make brooms...
But PROGRESS I tell you!
"In scary headlines like these, the adult man in the white van is the subject, and the child is the passive victim. The child can obviously be trained to identify that adult mans talking to them in white vans may require distance even if not every person doing so is a killer."
If this is true, turning off the brain... is completely rational. Why burn out the brain for something happening either way? It's not like being fully engaged is going to result in anything that much better for the employee. In a world where code is this disposable, memorizing a codebase that won't recognizably exist in 3 years is also stupid.
... without seeming to actually believe in any of the benefits. For example, why hasn't Altman shown up and said, "Sure, there's some environmental damage. It's a gamble. If this works, we can have AI build us the world's most efficient carbon cleanup system to absolute mathematical perfection and more than undo anything it cost. That's the kind of technology we're trying to build."
A homeless person may very well say that someone with your salary and ability to donate $500 to a political cause is undemocratic.
Consider if the US government liquidated every US billionaire at 100% of their stock market paper value (impossible, the liquidity influx would smash the stock price to the ground and ruin middle class retirements).
In this non-existent perfect world, it would raise about… $6-7 trillion. Enough to cover the US government deficit for under 3 years, or run the government for under one year. Then it’s gone.
Completely liquidating every billionaire would be satisfyingly cathartic, but still wouldn’t be enough to cause a real trajectory change. The idea is useful political fodder, to hide the fact even a hypothetically heavily taxed billionaire class can’t even cover today’s spending problem.
Define "production ready." Can any driver developed without official specifications, corporate approval, or long-term support plan, ever be properly considered production ready?
At this scale, the only question is if it gets merged upstream. Outside of that it's a "nuh uh, you didn't design it my way."
“Trump has renamed Lake Ontario to the Lake of America. Of course, the left knows you can’t just rename things for political gain, just ask any Latinx birthing person.”
Real life doesn't work that way. The government always has the $5 wrench. Or, well, the ability to just shut down your ISP.
Dude, they're literally watching Flock Cameras go up in their neighborhood, being told they use AI, and anyone with a brain who can add 2+2 (or read Larry Ellison on "best behavior") concludes these data centers are not merely for ChatGPT.
In which case, they see noise pollution, water pollution, construction pollution, property value damage, utility bill cost explosions; and what's the reward? Surveillance and white-collar job loss, possibly culminating in home loss. With the added irony of corporations saying data centers will create jobs, simultaneously as they run record-breaking layoffs and increase outsourcing. "Misguided."
“A backlash fuelled by misinformation and misunderstanding” is also just an academic jargon term for “my vision is superior, anyone who disagrees is out of stupidity, if they understood me they would agree.”
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've read here. Seriously; do you honestly believe, that we will be able to linearly scale all of the materials that go into robots?
You can't have a factory without motors, aluminum, steel, copper, quality control, CNC manufacturing, precision bearings, ball screws, harmonic drives, semiconductors, batteries, and skilled people to design, install, and maintain all of it. Every one of those is its own supply chain with its own bottleneck, and almost all of them are already constrained and at risk.
If anything, I would bet you $500 we will not be able to jump to the robotics age because we don't have enough skilled humans on this earth, due to the excitement about not training them because of their imminent replacement. That's before geopolitics - do you think China, if we actually built working humanoid robots, wouldn't immediately claim all supply for themselves and lock down the supply chain? Of course they would, it would be stupid not to. In the event of a working humanoid robot, every single dependency needs to be onshore, or it's not scaling.
I worked at a startup that offered to triple my equity if I stayed a full four years, a special offer to me for seven months of excellent performance. Four months later, growth below projections, they laid me off 19 days before my 1 year cliff. 3/9ths of the engineering team, gone.
The lesson I’ve learned is to never, ever, put long hours into a startup you don’t own. Ever.
Mainly because, bluntly, the people who have the most zeal, attention span, talent, and focus... aren't in the group.
Imagine progressively feeding the goose less, so as to have a greater profit margin on the golden eggs it laid. No particular percentage of feed reduction seemed too harmful, until one day it died unexpectedly.