orionsbelt

man wants to be free, just like a wolf. What if the AI does not? Then maybe it’s more like a border collie, bred to and happy to do the work.

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time

They have blood tests for both (serum or RBC):

The Magnesium RBC Test measures magnesium inside red blood cells, providing a more accurate assessment of magnesium status than serum tests.

Zuckerberg’s high vote shares convert to regular shares after he leaves or dies. His heirs will not continue to have super votes.

Did you watch the linked video: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mbafk7/openai_ceo...

It all sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me if you watch it.

Google has terrible communication skills and aesthetic taste. Even if their new products are technically good, and you are interested in this space, it's almost impossible to follow, e.g.: https://x.com/nathanclark_/status/2056947354654355849?s=20

What about transcranial magnetic stimulation?

First hit is free… got to get you hooked.

I don’t see this as Fidelity taking a political stand, but a conservative risk management decision.

You are willfully obtuse.

It’s a beachhead that will expand. The history of income taxes shows that. Once you have established an income tax, the next fight will be to raise it, or lower the income limit, and over years, it will end up covering everyone. The government is incentivized to over spend and then try to dig their way out be expanding taxes, but there is a limit to what you can tax.

You want people to vote for a millionaire tax tie it with a constitutional amendment that requires a higher vote bar to ever increase it and have all numbers automatically inflation adjusted

I don’t know what things are like in Amsterdam, but weed being “high quality” is not a good thing. The potency has skyrocketed over the past few decades. It’s like saying you went to Amsterdam to drink alcohol for the first time and had a bottle of tequila and passed out and puked; the fact that it was high quality tequila does not mean it’s better than a low quality glass of wine or beer. The issue is the doses are way too high.

Obviously this is just anecdotal and you could still be correct, but the two celebrities the article cited (Chadwick Boseman and James Van Der Beek) don’t seem to fit that mold.

> "A year or so ago"

What model?

Care to share the conversation? Or try again and see how the latest model does?

ChatGPT has done more for my health than any doctor. Truly.

You too. Tell me if you disagree that this seems to show the officer who removed the gun may have plausibly accidentally discharged the first shot: https://x.com/Landeur/status/2015191223900803407

The footage is too grainy to say anything for certain in my view.

> You can quite clearly see the second shooter in the video standing over him, shooting him multiple times as he's laying motionless on the ground after being beaten and shot once.

Yes, that's how cops/ICE react when they hear gunshots. They shoot and ask questions later. I'm not necessarily defending that (I think it would be a great thing if cops/ICE received more extensive training, cared more about de-escalation techniques, and perhaps even were more willing to risk their own lives than just always shoot recklessly), but putting all that aside, if someone yells "gun", and then a shot is fired, the second shooter then assuming it's the guy they are tackling that shot, and shooting him multiple times in response, is a typical cop reaction. So the main question is - who fired the first shot and why? The moral weight of the event, at least in my view, is very different if it was ICE deliberately shooting, or an accidental discharge that triggered everything.

> According to whom? What's your source for this? Wild that you're trying to muddy the waters with "theories" that even ICE hasn't claimed (the only defense so far is that he was a violent domestic terrorist who wanted to murder ICE agents, which is demonstrably false).

Most likely according to me, based on the videos I have seen (https://x.com/Landeur/status/2015191223900803407). I could be wrong. I was responding to someone who said there's clear video that it was a deliberate execution. The water of any breaking news reporting is already muddy; it's all speculation on all sides.

Well, from what I’ve seen, the most likely theory is that the agent who disarmed the man (after another agent had yelled “gun”) then accidentally discharged the weapon, which caused all the other ICE officers to freak out and discharge their weapons.

I don’t want to argue over the broader questions; ie should ICE even be there and doing this; are they adequately trained; are they overly aggressive to tackle this guy and pepper spray him in the first instance; is American law enforcement is way too trigger happy and protective of their own skin; and so on. There’s a lot of validity to all of that. But the narrow story of this particular incident changes a lot if there was an accidental discharge that made the other offices believe he was shooting.

I feel like we live in different worlds.

I use AI everyday and it already a magic intelligence in the sky to me.

If anything, the AI labs have been pretty dead on about their predictions so far.

How that will impact the economy and productivity is anyone’s guess, so I don’t think Sam pontificating about that in interviews holds him culpable for a crash.

I am hyped based on using the products, not what Sam says

“ Cash-back benefits are primarily funded through interest on carried balances (not interchange fees).” citation needed. My understanding is that this is false.

All models are not the same. GPT 4o, and specific versions of it, were particularly sycophantic, and it’s something models still do a bit too much, but the models are getting better at this and will continue to do so.

That’s misleading. Altman was simply doing a napkin calculation based on the scale at which ChatGPT operates and not estimating based on internal data: “There are 15,000 people a week that commit suicide,” Altman told the podcaster. “About 10% of the world are talking to ChatGPT. That’s like 1,500 people a week that are talking, assuming this is right, to ChatGPT and still committing suicide at the end of it. They probably talked about it. We probably didn’t save their lives. Maybe we could have said something better. Maybe we could have been more proactive. Maybe we could have provided a little bit better advice about ‘hey, you need to get this help, or you need to think about this problem differently, or it really is worth continuing to go on and we’ll help you find somebody that you can talk to’.”

You could similarly say something like 10k+ people used Google or spoke to a friend this week and still killed themselves.

Many of those people may have never mentioned their depression or suicidal tendencies to ChatGPT at all.

I think Altman appropriately recognizes that at the scale at which they operate, there’s probably a lot more good they can do in this area, but I don’t think he thinks (nor should he think) that they are responsible for 1,500 deaths per week.

It’s advertising a ChatGPT feature (and admittedly, also helps advertise Peloton); namely that you can connect your ChatGPT account to Peloton and query Peloton. I personally find this a very helpful feature, and think they should be advertising this in some manner within the app, as otherwise, people will have no idea the features now exist.

This is separate from the android app findings which I suspect is OpenAI working to launch true ads - ie advertising non-chatGPT features in exchange for payments from brands.

Ilya Sustkever was on a podcast, saying to imagine a mystery novel where at the end it says “and the killer is: (name)”. Saying it’s just a statistical model generating the next most likely word, how can it do that in this case if it doesn’t have some understanding of all the clues, etc. A specific name is not statistically likely to appear

And what if you, despite being healthy, get diagnosed with cancer right one your employer fails, thus becoming uninsurable? This type of thing happened to people.

It’s nice the above can no longer happen. You could, at the same time, still allow insurers to charge a premium to smokers and obese and for other lifestyle risks within one’s control. They are not mutually exclusive.

Assumptions, assumptions...

I am not right wing, have never voted for Trump or chanted "lock her up", and no, I believe in principles and not party loyalty and would have felt the same had it been Biden.

I was also against Clinton's impeachment for the same reason. Stormy Daniels and Monica Lewinsky were both private sexual matters, and to try to use ancillary technical crimes (obstruction; campaign finance) to remove your political opponent is a bad precedent and it's bad when both parties do it.

Your reply itself also proves my point. You say that the right wing would have prosecuted Biden on the same facts, not that the same left wing New York DA would have. Justice shouldn't be left wing and right wing.

But his NY felony convictions were not about those cases but about paying off Stormy Daniels. That case I do think was lawfare; it was politically motivated and on similar facts would never have been brought against, as an example, Joe Biden.

It’s also a very dangerous precedent to bring criminal charges against the presumptive (and in hindsight, actual) winner of the at time forthcoming presidential election, even if some of the cases have merit. Regardless of the merit of the cases, it’s impossible for that scenario to not be at least partly politically motivated and to have the effect of trying to disenfranchise half the country.

I don’t have a strong enough view here to have an opinion, but I think someone as rich as her always had a publicist, so to play devils advocate, it may be true that the press only played ball with the publicist after she was convicted.

Your links are misleading:

- Jassy: "When Jassy became CEO in 2021, he received a special stock award with a total value of $212 million. This award vests over 10 years..." - Ellison: "Founder, chairman and CTO Larry Ellison was awarded $138.6 million in the year ended 31 May 2022...However the bulk of the headline-grabbing figures, some $129.3 million of the total awards for both the CTO and CEO, will not be realized for a further three years. The performance-based stock options (PSOs) were granted in May 2018 and were supposed to vest in May 2022 "at the earliest" but were expected to take five years."

Zuckerberg may have agreed to forego additional equity comp, but he is a rare exception. Most executives receive new equity grants, subject to vesting, as compensation, even if they already own a lot of stock, as the stock they already own is not compensation for work.

1. Elon could quit and do zero work and he would still own the 12%. So what is his compensation for the extra work?

2. If you owned $10M worth of shares of TSLA from your personal investments, and applied to work at TSLA, would it be reasonable to deny you any compensation since you are already incentivized and share in the success?

This is not to comment on what the right pay package is; perhaps the proposed one is far far too rich, but that's a separate question to whether his existing assets are compensation or not.