notshift

Shameful, really. The importance of public critique & awareness of OpenAI's leadership should go beyond the interests of YC.

In the original context, it sounded very much like he was referring to clawed-back equity. I’m trying to find the link.

Seems like every time people think big things in the body are there for no reason, new developments later show them to be wrong.

I don’t care to say more than the above because I will already get downvoted for even this much.

It's going to be far easier to re-enable the ability to self-repair our bodies as we do in youth than to completely change the function of two of our limbs.

See, I can do argument by contradiction too.

Most of human evolutionary history was hunter-gatherer times, and they were not eating wheat. Farming is a relatively recent invention.

I think the Tesla AI team is just unserious about the problem, probably largely because of Musk being a poor leader for the project.

Besides that the article is mostly just attempted character assassination of various people and goes after some of the more fringe elements / treatments in the field.

A huge part of functional medicine is just helping the patient address lifestyle factors - diet, exercise, sleep, stress, and removing negative environmental influences, whether those are a person, a diet issue (particular foods can do a lot of damage), a physical environmental issue such as mold, etc.

The first step that every (decent) functional medicine doctor takes with a new patient is just looking for nutritional deficiencies and other lifestyle factors, and doing tests and asking questions to check for those things. Completely uncontroversial and backed up by science that everyone on earth agrees with. But regular doctors don't even take that basic step for their patients because it takes too long to actually learn about a person, their background, their personality, etc. and actually help them create lifestyle change.

Beyond that, I wish the critics would actually address the more common treatments in functional medicine instead of the fringe stuff. Things like alternative treatments for parasites (blastocystis, various worms, dientamoeba, etc.), candida overgrowth, SIBO, heavy metal poisoning, various autoimmune issues, nutritional deficiencies, hormonal issues, etc.

The modern healthcare system is broken in a hundred ways but instead of having any curiosity about alternative approaches folks like the author of this article just attack the field and the people in it rabidly.

GPT will start becoming really powerful when you just give it arms and legs and let it build it's own training dataset the way regular animals do (in the process of evolution & throughout their lives).

Redis is 70k lines of code and yet only "does a single thing" - runs an in-memory data store.

IMO it's much more useful to just consider which mode of code organization increases readability and maintainability. Those are things you can actually describe and examine.

In general you'll be able to basically see in real time the glycemic impact of all the foods you eat. Which would probably be helpful to a lot of people - you can find all the info online, but having the physical real time stats in front of you makes a difference.

But mostly its what you'd expect. High carb, fast digesting meal -> blood sugar spikes, then drops in accordance with you feeling tired afterwards. Eat keto -> blood sugar is mostly stable.

Could be wrong on the above but that's been my understanding/experience.

What AI will accomplish is creating an entire new package ecosystem from scratch, written at a low-level so that it can be extremely performant, while also being highly extensible, abstract, intuitive, interoperable with all languages, etc.

Then the code will be able to take human prompts and translate them into business logic code that uses all those packages. For fuzzy domains with low correctness requirements, the AI will be able to make all the changes to the codebase without verification. For domains with higher correctness requirements, humans will review all the code, or you could have the AI first generate a formal specification based on the prompt, have the humans review that, and then have the AI generate code along with a proof of that code's correctness in conformance to the spec.

Above thread summarizes the issue pretty well I think. Optimizing for DOM updates is nice, but you also want to optimize for bundle size and page load time, and at a certain app size the compiler output is always going to be bigger than just using a virtual DOM.

The main reason why I draw parallels is because my main objective is progress towards machines achieving human-level intelligence. We already have an "AGI" which works incredibly well; the human brain. We should be studying it as deeply as possible and borrowing its means & mechanisms for use in our machine intelligence systems. Trying to re-invent the brain from scratch is surely going to be far harder.

IMO, the genome is like an abstract system which was "designed" for evolution. It can move in one direction or another on the phenotypic plane actually extremely quickly under strong environmental pressures (on the order of only a few hundred or thousand years). And the winds of environmental pressures are frequently shifting, producing what was likely a very thorough and aggressive search of the state space.

I agree there is probably a lot to be learned from further study of the human body and brain, but we will have to re-invent a lot ourselves too since the machine capabilities we are looking for are really a lot different than the constraints that humans were shaped under.