jamesrcole

> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.

You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.

Not one bit of that justifies actively misleading people. Which is what that headline does.

> Lets assume what you say is true about Musk

There's no need to assume. If you are actually educated on the subject, you know it is the case. You don't because you're ignorant about it. Which would be fine, if you weren't pontificating about things you know nothing anything about.

> current day Twitter addicted, drug addicted, brain damaged Musk

this is like conspiracy-theory level stuff.

I see you didn’t pay attention to what I did and did not say in my original comment. I’ve read a biography of him and When The Heavens Went On Sale, which covers SpaceX [Edit: I'd remembered the book incorrectly. I have read that book, but it doesn't cover SpaceX. The books that I'd read that cover SpaceX are The Space Barons: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and The Quest To Colonize The Cosmos, by Christian Davenport, and Liftoff: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That Launched SpaceX, by Eric Berger]. What you’re claiming about him is completely wrong and completely ignorant. I know you haven’t actually read anything substantial about him, because if you had you’d be fully aware of how stupid the claims you are making are.

You literally don’t know what you’re talking about. If you’d read any biography of him you’d know how utterly wrong your claims are.

After the endings of Thimbleweed Park and Return To Monkey Island, I lost a lot of respect for Ron Gilbert.

> "Having the courage to go on when nobody believes in you"

If you're doing something that isn't like how people are used to things being done, is novel, or is contra to common beliefs, there's a good chance that nobody will believe in you. And in such situations, their lack of belief is not a reliable indicator of whether what you're doing is valid or correct. Most people's negative responses in such cases are emotional responses, not rational ones.

In such situations, "Being honest with themselves about whether what they are doing is actually working or not" and "Having the courage to go on when nobody believes in you" are not opposites.

> As we advance it becomes more difficult to advance. You obviously make most advancements around the things that are easiest to improve. Then all the easy things are done.

This isn't some foregone conclusion. It completely depends on the rate at which the intelligence and abilities of the AI increases. If that rate was high enough, then the harder and harder problems would become easier and easier for it.

I would expect a model's result each time to be of a similar quality to the other times. There's something wrong if it does a way better or worse job, at the same problem, sometimes. It's possible, but I haven't heard anyone saying that they do.

it's unfortunate that they live an extra 6 months???

Though you'd want to make sure there's no essential information that only this employee knows, because that action might terminate that employee's desire to cooperate with the company.

technology gets cheaper over time. If they were always going to cost the amount they do now, you might have a point. But they'll eventually get much cheaper.

> I've long considered writing to be the "last step in thinking".

I think it's often useful to use writing all the way through the process of thinking through something, rather than just at the end.

And if there are aliens? I'm being serious. Why does it have to be human intent?

And I think it is entirely feasible that at some point -- how far away, I don't know -- AI becomes superior to us in its appreciation of life and living.

We're in the very early stages of AI generated art. What will it be like in 10 years time? 20? 50? You might think it won't get much better. I think that's unlikely.

I assume they mean "we don't yet know all the things a computer can't do, only certain limits".

it's common in Australia

The science fiction author Greg Egan has been "battling" with Google for many years because, even though there are zero photos of him on the internet, Google insists that certain photos are of him. This was all well before Google started using AI. He's written about it here: https://gregegan.net/ESSAYS/GOOGLE/Google.html

A tool that can handle more than one question at a time is useful. Modern LLMs handle that with ease. So it's completely reasonable to be critical of that limitation.

Who said it was? I’m pretty sure they’re trained on a lot more than just those.

what do you object to about it? I don't see an issue with referring to "the corpus of human knowledge". "Corpus" pretty much just means the "collection of".

There aren't any spelling errors. If you want to claim otherwise it would be easy for you to show examples.

You talk about it as if doesn't exist anymore. If you're not aware, it still exists.

> He also should have run this through a spell checker.

What's an example of a spelling mistake in it? I read it carefully and didn't notice any.

[EDIT: people downvoting this, how about you explain what you object to in it]

> It's really a bummer to see this marketed as 'AI Discovers Something New'.

The headline doesn't suggest that. It's "AI Helps Unravel", and that seems a fair and accurate claim.

And that's true for the body of the article, too.

> You know what the biggest problem with pushing all-things-Al is? Wrong direction.

> I want Al to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for Al to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.

This implies a zero-sum where resources put into LLMs are resources taken away from robotics, and having to choose between one or the other.

The reality is that we can have both, and people are working on both. And I'd bet that advancing LLMs will help to advance useful robotics.

So I really dislike that sentiment.

> These videos of robotic cow milking machines, feed mixers and distributers and pushers, and manure roombas are amazing!

These robots need to be named "moombas"

I think it’s probably for the better… but it’s a bit hard for me to judge. I don’t know much about the project, and didn’t understand those details, so I don’t know how important they were, or whether there is a better way to address the issues with what was there.

Some feedback on the webpage.

"The goal? To make the inside of systems explainable.

[image]

caption: "The need for moldability is pervasive. The treemap shows the classes of Glamorous Toolkit organized in packages. Blue denotes classes that contain at least one contextual view; green shows those that have an example."

I have no idea what that caption, nor the image, means, nor what it has to do with making the inside of systems explainable.

The text you quote doesn’t really answer the question. Does “number of kids” come under their interpretation of “overall financial circumstances”?