matteoraso

What? I follow him on Twitter, and he's pretty open worried about AI existental risk. He just wants accurate reporting about the situation.

If that were true, the Republicans would implement a VAT. Trump is legitimately just a moron with a cult of personality.

PE exists because a lot of companies are poorly managed. It's better for your local hospital to be taken over by a PE firm than to go out of business. You can say that it would be even better if the government ran the hospital, and you would be right, but that would require a radical overhaul of the American healthcare system. Until that happens, PE plays a major role in keeping things working.

This is pointless if the failed Prop 13 amendment doesn't get repealed. Start with the major issues first, and then see if the tax system needs to be changed.

It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?

This is an argument for why it's usefult to assume that AI aren't sentient, but it does a very poor job at actually justifying that they aren't sentient. I'm on the fence, but I think it's plausible that they have certain qualia, although probably not in the same way that humans do.

I'm a lot more sympathetic to Joe Biden temporarily causing a spike in inflation while helping America recover from a horrible pandemic than Republicans habitually running the country off of debt.

And which party controls congress? I'll give you a hint: It's the party that spent decades advocating for irresponsible tax cuts without cutting spending[0].

[0] Yes, I know that the Republicans said that they were going to cut spending to match the tax cuts, but that never ends up happening.

I think that AI presents some very real risks, but I don't think it's going to eliminate humanity. I'm worried that people are going to lose sight of the very real benefits as well, which I think are greater than the risks. I don't think this is a marketing ploy, though. The tech CEOs seem to really believe that they've created something dangerous, but a lot of that is because we haven't had enough time to get used to this new technology.

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Nobody's using LLMs for chess, but even if they are, just give them Stockfish as part of their harness. They don't need to do everything themselves as long as they're intelligent enough to use tools.

There's a pretty strong selection bias here, where you only challenge a denial if it's likely to be overturned.

I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".

This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.

Jokes aside, that's a horrible test for AGI. I like to think that I'm sentient, and I could never solve a millenium problem.

This is undeniably epochal, but I can't help but notice that this is yet another example of AI disproving rather than proving something. Is this just a coincidence, or does AI slightly struggle with proving theorems?[0]

[0] Struggle relative to its ability to disprove, not struggle relative to people's ability to prove theorems.

I predict the opposite. With AI, labour costs will go down, creating an abundance of goods. Unemployment may be an issue, but the workforce is already declining because of the fertility crisis, so I think we'll manage having a certain percentage of jobs automated away.

Easy to say when you never had to live that life.

>We never stop learning, we don't have a "training phase".

We kind of do, if you count critical periods in childhood.

But the EU was never meant to be a loose forum of nations. From the very beginning, the Single European Act made it clear that the intention was to integrate the member states into a single union, "speaking ever increasingly with one voice".[0]

[0]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

>The concern is that autism as a rigorous category may be useless, but that doesn't mean that autistic people are suddenly neurotypical

IDK. I'm diagnosed as autistic, but I've become a bit less attached to that label in recent years. Like, I do struggle with eye contact, excessive noise, and social situations. I'm not going to say that I'm just a normal guy, but I do think that there's a wide spectrum here that encompasses everybody. I don't buy the idea that autism is some special category of people that are totally unlike neurotypicals. Instead, it's just one side of the spectrum, with neurotypicals on the other end, and an ambiguous group in the middle[0]. I think that once society becomes more accepting of neurodiversity, we're going to stop getting so hung up on labels like "autistic" and "neurotypical" and accept that there's a lot of nuance in the human condition.

[0] In reality, this spectrum would be multi-dimensional, but I'm choosing to describe it as a 1D line for illustrative purposes.

This is true, and an understated consequence of homelessness. My city is working on deploying portapotties for the homeless for this reason.

It's also overseen by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care. Also, how on Earth do you think insurance companies don't consult doctors on insurance denials?

Something that gets ignored is that we're already facing a serious decline in the workforce as a result of the fertility crisis. If we can automate some jobs at the same time as people leave the workforce en masse, we can avoid a catasrophe.

>I think a lot of people would be very content if they never got smarter, and just kept getting even cheaper/faster.

There's a lot of truth to this. I think we're starting to approach the point where increased intelligence has declining marginal returns, such that it might not even be worthwhile to improve models unless it can be done cheaply.

The world economy is based on the idea that America will always repay its debt. Them not paying it back will be the financial equivilent of a nuclear bomb, not just for them, but for literally everybody.

The uncomfortable reality is that fixing this will require tax hikes AND spending cuts. Not just taxes on people you don't like and spending cuts on niche programs, real changes like a VAT and slashing the VA.

Often the case with big pharma. I for one will never join in on the populist backlash against those that make livesaving pharmaceuticals for us.

Huh? How would chemo "block his liver"? Do you mean that he had a liver metastasis that the chemo didn't help with?

Huh? NICE sets a cost-effectiveness threshold of about £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained from a drug[0]. There was even a controversy where a drug for pancreatic cancer was denied funding for this very reason[1].

[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20110925050527/http://www.nice.o...

[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20151225115559/http://www.pancre...

>With Universal Healthcare the government just provides the funding.

And what makes you think that they fund everything? I support universal healthcare as well (I'm literally Canadian), but I can accept that there are tradeoffs associated with it.