kaibee

Ignorance is bliss right? If you don't believe that climate change is real, etc.

Ehh, evolution is less concerned with the survival of the individual than that. But I hadn't considered the benefit to the group.

How do you get twice the power without the chip gaining a gooey caramel filling?

If being anti-government in the US was something you could get arrested for and therefore stop paying your debts because of, I think it'd get added to credit scores pretty quickly.

> I mean, you agreed on something, which is the bloat of a system, you just disagree on the "how to fix it" part.

Unfortunately, the "how to fix it" part is the part that requires building political consensus. Getting agreement on X being too expensive is easy; everyone always wants everything to be cheaper.

> If I said "We need a crane that can lift 3000lbs" and you agree, and you come up with a design that uses an electric motor system, and I come up with a design that uses a diesel engine, we still agreed on something, just not the implementation of how to do it.

> I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but if you and I could agree on some bad consequence of "too many regulations" (e.g. the prices of healthcare are too high as a result of the regulations), that is some common ground. The question then comes down "which regulations would be best to cut to lower costs?" and reduces to an optimization problem.

The problem I have is that using "too many regulations" as the foundation is inevitably doomed. Lets say we find some collection of regulations that could be cut. Well, any solution is going to, at a glance, look like an additional regulation to the layman. And that's before the parasites that are profiting from the existing inefficiencies start spinning narratives about how this is another government overreach and how we're killing America.

> That is what is going on here. Look at MKBHD's review, the main potential he pointed out was the LAM functionality and the possible future uses of that. It turns out that entire thing was faked, and the "magic" that was the LAM is a "hidden physical mechanism" of duct tape'd together manual automations

I suspect the plan is/was to replace this with an actual LAM after release or possibly they thought they'd have it ready for release but ran into the 'last 5%' issue that seems to plague AI automation of anything. Definitely not an ethical move, but I can see how someone who bought into the AI hype might think it was a reasonable gamble to become a billionaire.

Also as EV/Plugin-Hybrid adoption keeps increasing, the emissions generated from even a dedicated trip aren't an issue.

> that cannot have hundreds of siblings

See this is the problem with claims that humans are a 'general intelligence'. They get confused when encountering out-of-distribution situations. A true general intelligence would simply apply the knowledge that surrogate pregnancies cost around ~$50,000 and recall from historical context their knowledge of IVF. The AGI would then assume that the situation is simply that a billionaire couple has decided to have hundreds of kids and get on with the calculation. The search for intelligent life continues.

content note: i'm sorry

The fence analogy kinda breaks down here. The sum total of regulations are like a collection of Chestson's Fences, each one added to the legal code for specific edge cases and the outcome of removing any individual one will have different results.

It doesn't mean anything to talk about reducing regulations without being specific about which rules you actually have an issue with, but it can provide the illusion of consensus.

Like we could both talk about healthcare and say that healthcare is too regulated in the US and that we should reduce the regulations! This a broadly agreeable position! But if I'm thinking of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need and you're thinking of the ACA cap on insurance profits (Medical Loss Ratio https://content.naic.org/cipr-topics/medical-loss-ratio#:~:t...), then we didn't actually agree on anything, did we?

Ah yes, what would we do without HP and Oracle.

Eh, atmospheric CO2 (and other GHGs) is just another input parameter. I don't see any reason that the model wouldn't be able to incorporate all of the data. If the climate system is just getting more chaotic, well, you're still running multiple projections, and you'll see that in increased variance.

> If you want analogies it's like creating a Ferrari body, putting it around a cheap car and trying to sell it.

A proud tradition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_300

> it doesn't say why a camera responding to a 550 nm photon isn't seeing red when your retina is.

It isn't your retina 'seeing' red. The retina is just translating it to the rest of the brain. When we replace eyes with silicon-based cameras (poorly, not in color, low resolution, but still) the patient experiences seeing again. Or going the other way, when you have a dream and see something red in that dream, you experience* (or at least, you have the memory of experiencing it) the qualia despite having your eyes closed and being asleep.

You have to reach out to them and ask them to send in a new prescription every month. If they use something like Epic its easy enough to just go into the app and request a refill with a few buttons.

They have their own fabs, a new GPU line, and they're national security critical. they also make pretty good CPUs even if they aren't the best value/$.

> That’s fair, we can’t even prove humans aren’t like you say - although the brain is vastly more complex than a neural network analogy lets on. I suppose once these models become sophisticated enough we’ll have to treat them as conscious until it can be proven one way or another.

I suspect that a lot of the complexity is legacy code and/or incidental to the implementation. Cells have to do a lot of things just to continue living. Likewise, a lot of what the brain does is just control the very complex biochemical reactor that it lives in. ie: whales have big brains relative to humans (though they are a much smaller % of their body).

> 3. I used to work for one that needed it. I’ve also interviewed at one that had the same problem. A bit hesitant to reach out to potential customers though before I have a solid product I can deliver. But perhaps I shouldn’t be?

Companies generally have to be suffering pretty badly to take a risk on changing their tech stack to something unproven. And the risk for you at that point is that they choose to spend 10x on consultants to implement some existing system instead.

The CTO needs to trade off the opportunity cost of developing new features/existing maintenance against integrating an unproven product. How can you de-risk this for them? (Even just showing that you recognize that this is the case can help)

Maybe this is a time to "do things that don't scale". ie: offer to integrate it into their system for them (for at least some small part/pain point), and likely in parallel so that they can evaluate it without taking down the existing system.

Just my two cents.

> An LLM could be safe the first 99 times and then randomly wipe your hard drive.

So like, has anyone ever actually done enough fuzzing to see if this or other actually bad commands ever happen in practice, or are we just going on vibes here? I suppose its possible that you give it a text description to do something bad and it does, but I'm actually curious if this is just 'llms bad' vibes.

Do you have some numbers on this? I suspect it's a couple of issues.

1. If you just give people money to pay for childcare or whatever, but there's not enough labor, then all that happens is that the price gets bid up higher.

2. I suspect that the 'hard push' wasn't arrived at by figuring out how much money it would actually take to make someone have kids, but by fighting for whatever Euros could be diverted. There is definitely an amount of money that people will have kids for, but I think it is a lot higher than governments/electorates are ready to confront.

Honestly I think testing these on fiction books would be more impressive. The graphene thing I'm sure shows up in some research papers.

Poe's "The Raven" also.

> Tesla - people dependent on the electrical grid are far easier to control than those dependent on gasoline.

Where do you think gasoline comes from exactly? I can rechange an electric car completely off grid with solar/wind. I'm still working on my off-grid oil drilling and refinery operation.

It might be just by sign-up order. I signed up for pro basically as soon as I could, but I never hit limits, and only really use it once or twice a day, sometimes not at all.

Kinda stretching the definition of interactive there.

Prompted to LlamaV3 70B

What are the benefits of laser eye removal surgery?

> I think there may be a misunderstanding. There is no such thing as "laser eye removal surgery." However, I assume you meant to ask about the benefits of LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis) eye surgery, which is a type of refractive surgery that reshapes the cornea to improve vision.

It ain't the PS3 era where consoles are some radically different hardware stack. The latest gen, except for nintendo, are basically just x86-64 gaming PCs.

I think its note worthy that humans actually fail this test... We have to go dormant for 8 hours every day.

ISPs don't exist in a vacuum. Why would Comcast spend millions of dollars implementing some anti-NN consumer ratfuckery when they'd have to revert it once the next administration came into power? If Comcast knew that it wasn't going to get overturned, then they would take advantage.

The filibuster makes this kind of 'control' moot. You need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to actually get anything done (and the Presidency, to not veto). 'Control of half of Congress' when that half is the house, is meaningless.