ozr

This is the result of a poor org structure and poor leadership, not something particular to SRE.

Yes, but:

1) Historically they have.

2) Most people in the US that haven't purchased very recently are locked in at very low rates. Only 9% of mortgages are over 6%. 61% of outstanding mortages are <4% [0].

3) There are a lot of incentives (and the ability) for governments to ensure home prices continue to increase, although at a rate lower than they are now.

4) We spent over a year with inflation that is double most people's mortgage rates.

5) You have to live somewhere regardless; the alternative is renting. For most of the country, at least until very recently, that was a worse option.

[0] https://apolloacademy.com/the-distribution-of-mortgage-inter...

This isn't really a thing in the US right now. Less than 10% of mortgages are adjustable. The share of ARMs in 08 was much, much higher.

I'm unfamiliar with BEAM. How does this compared to goroutines? Obviously they won't migrate between machines, but concurrency feels very easy and ergonomic in Go.

Yes. The most aggressive consent requirement for recording is 'two-party' consent, where the both people on the call need to be aware it's being recorded. If you say "this is/may be(ing) recorded" then both parties are aware.

I run 70B very cheaply using serverless GPUs. I've had the best experience with Runpod, but there are a few other options out there for it as well.

> What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

"I dare you to say forbidden things publicly as we comment on an article discussing the negative impacts of doing so"

It's not a sound use case. LLMs have no concept of taste or conception of cooking. Just because they can string the words together into something that looks like recipe, doesn't mean it's actually something more useful than a randomly generated output.

> Indirectly, it kickstarted global CBDCs research, blockchain-integration research across major financial institutions, tokenisation efforts, etc.

These are also all negatives. Profound wastes of time.

It's not a 'vulnerability'. It's allowing people to use the models without the morals of a small number of SV engineers being impressed on you.

There’s a spectrum of possibilities. What if GPT-10 obviates 80% of jobs and can’t automatically identify every human uniquely? This covers that step in the process.

It's not post-scarcity, it's post-labor. Which is a prerequisite for post-scarcity, but not sufficient. Resources, even allocated optimally by a superintelligence, are still constrained based on the number of people living and the material contained on Earth.

(And, to be clear: I'm sharing their perspective, not mine).

Any sufficiently AI would be under the control of some trustworthy entity. Preferably one. It's too dangerous otherwise.

(I don't agree with this, but it's a common perspective amongst this crowd).

> The need for UBI would only make sense if only certain classes of individuals can utilize AGI and others need to purchase their produce.

This is part of that mindset. The idea of AGI being freely available is horrifying to x-riskers. The idea of it not existing is also just not possible. So they want to see it in the hands of as few people as possible.

This is a 'reasonable response' to the current AI wave by people that subscribe to the Effective Altruism/LessWrong/AI-Doomer mythos.

If AGI is created and then removes the need for any human to work, UBI (or the like) would be essential. You'd want to avoid abuse, so you also need to uniquely verify each person receiving it. I don't think the people involved in this are ignorant to the concerns, they just see it as inevitable based on their ideas about the future.

> The orb was necessary, the website continued, because of Worldcoin’s commitment to fairness: each person should get his or her allotted share of the digital currency—and no more. To ensure there was no double-dipping, the chrome orb would scan participants’ irises and several other biometric data points and then, using a proprietary algorithm that the company was still developing, cryptographically confirm that they were human and unique in Worldcoin’s database.

> “I’ve been very interested in things like universal basic income and what’s going to happen to global wealth redistribution,” Sam Altman, Worldcoin’s cofounder and the former President of Silicon Valley accelerator Y Combinator, told Bloomberg, which first reported on the company last summer. Worldcoin was intended, he explained, to answer the question “Is there a way we can use technology to do that at a global scale?”

A common response from Altman when asked about the benefits of AGI is "I think eliminating poverty is good". This is what he's talking about.

Of course, this redistribution doesn't apply to him, early employees, or investors:

> Others took issue with the company’s purported focus on fairness given that 20% of the coins had already been allocated: 10% to Worldcoin’s full-time employees, and another 10% to investors, like Andreessen Horowitz.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

The llama 2 chat models are completely neutered. They are practically unusable. I'm convinced it was joke from the Meta engineers.

The NYT Rent v Buy calculator is pretty out of date at this point, but it's definitely not as straightforward as rent being throwing away money and a mortgage building equity. Upkeep is a non-trivial expense, opportunity costs of money put down, money still being not turned into equity via, e.g., property taxes and insurance (higher than renters), etc.

Add in the bigger intangible of the flexibility you gain from renting, and it's going to be a very individual decision.

Sure, first name in the article I posted, Joep Meindertsma. They have an open discord you can join, but fair warning that it's entirely panicky people lamenting their inevitable doom.

I've spoken to people in the article. They expect doom in <1 year.

> "Convinced that we are a few years from extinction," is an exaggeration of the pessimistic/alarmed end of the spectrum of opinion.

It really isn't. There are people quitting their jobs, protesting AI companies, and inducing panic attacks in children over their irrational fears:

https://www.wired.com/story/pause-ai-existential-risk/

The intuition about how the gzip method works goes like so:

If you compress `ABC`, it will be X bytes. If you then compress `ABCABC`, it will not take 2x bytes. The more similar the two strings that you concatenate, the less bytes it will take. `ABCABD` will take more than `ABCABC`, but less than `ABCXYZ`.

BERT is, by todays standards, a very small LLM, which we know has weaker performance than the billion-param scale models most of us are interacting with today.

Could be apocryphal, but I swear I read something from the writers on the show saying that they would take turns coming up with the most ridiculous computer interaction they could think of.

Why work around it? If they want to kill their service, I'd rather watch it happen with a smile than desperately try to save them.

This is a wholly imaginary problem.

If it's so rare that it needs to be explicit defined as a medical syndrome, a disclaimer should be unneeded.

The product is open source. They chose to make a linux distribution.

So prior to today, GCC didn't exist?

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but this is another time on this very same post where I've seen this expressed:

> I was indifferent/supportive of CoCs until it was used against me over some trivial thing

How can we avoid needing to get to that point?

Price's law, for one. Experience with the general effectiveness of large companies, especially their support teams, for another.