stoperaticless

We all can choose to either just follow orders or try to influence the direction.

Some caveats: 1. Nobody will be convinced to change the position on the first attempt, but seeds of knowledge can be planted in other peoples heads and some of those seeds will bear fruit later. 2. Being not nice, shuts down the passageway of ideas.

Is it? There are plenty of examples in animal kingdom, which should prove, it is not unsurmountable problem.

Theoretically the goal is to pass on the best set of genes.

> The obvious explanation

No.

“universe appeared everywhere at once at exactly same temperature” Same level of obviousness, if not more.

For some reason a disclaimer is mandatory these days: I am not saying I know more than cosmologists, just that inflation is nowhere near the “obvious explanation” territory.

> Not possible. Redshift is not the only observation we have. The totality of all the observations we have cannot be explained in any other way than an expanding universe.

Well..? What are those other observations that point to expansion?

> evolutionary because everyone needs to find a mate somehow.

I don’t see this as evolutionary necessity.

Theoretically alpha male could father all the children.

I bet same reason that you just outlined.

(Chicken and the egg problem)

Yup. That is _part_ of human nature.

That’s why power corrupts.

Not over night, but there is long term risk.

First, I admit, I believe in certain stereotypes that X people are more hardworking than Y people. (On average)

I believe so, because I believe that upbringing has tremendous impact of how an adult lives, commits and achieves things, and different cultures have different styles of life, and consequently guide kids differently.

UBI most definitely would not change things over night, but it could (I mean that it’s probable) start the shift towards “couch patato” like end of culture spectrum.

> Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths

Seems a reasonable and useful way to define it.

> any definition is going to be fuzzy.

Definitely! (That is why I preemptively added my attempt at the definition, to avoid a discussion past each other)

I understand capitalism as “things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”.

> it's a single possible pareto equilibrium

I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism

> Capitalism is not an expression of human nature

Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).

Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.

Math definition goes something like this: f(n)=O(g(n)), if exists C such that f(n) < C x g(n), when n goes to infinity.

Function “quickSortExecutionTime(permutation)” depends on exact input (each permutation/shuffle has different exec time), parameter “permutation” can not go to infinity, so it can’t be used with O(n) directly. (Parameter need to be single real number)

QuickSortWorstCaseTime(n) is single valued function thus, it can be used with O(n) notation. Same is true for quickSortAvgCaseTime(n) and quickSortBestCaseTime(n).

But you answered my question. (Very indirect “Yes” :) )

s/(non-)?western//g

> See when democracies do it, it's ¨just to make it simpler"

> When dictatorships do it, it's "fraud".

Seems plausible.

Credentials and reputation matter.

Pure creativity without skill (i.e. kids) does not yield much. (Spaghetti drawing’s creative value is limited)

Skill requires practice, which is building “muscle memory” (which is approx. what is meant by “memorisation” by the author)

Probably you would have had more agreement, if you would have used a different word (though I’m not able to suggest that different word that captures the meaning I think you intended)

I think we need some citations to know if what you are talking about is true /s

Definitely incompetence. Maybe not personal, but as a collective - definitely.

1. They run inside a kernel.

2. They have many clients. (Incl. hospitals?)

This implies serious severity and impact of potential incidents, so in turn it should imply certain level of quality assurance process.

As we witnessed, it has glaring holes.

Well. If it was bearable then, with 2x powerful pc, it should be much better.

I sense that you have in mind something like

> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

That is the right reaction to over-complicated baroque creations.

Important to note, that oversimplification is possible. (There is point at which removal is no longer benefitial)

In lwn comments a guy insists that “O(f(n)) is by definition a bound over the worst-case case input to a function.”

Is that actually true?

Mathematically: O(f(n)) is asymptotic bound when n approaches infinity, which could be used to describe worst, best, average and other cases.

Have programmers redefined O to specifically mean worst case?

Hm. Chip fabrication?

> I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X, so there's no need to consider it seriously.

True. I doubt that field experts are directly affected by the naming, but indirect effect might come via less knowledgable (AI wise) financial decision makers.

I see a risk that those decision makers (and society) would be mislead if they were promised AGI (based on their “strict” understanding, what’s in the movies), but received AGI (based on “relaxed” meaning). Informed consent is usually good.

Though surely that can be resolved with more public discourse; maybe “relaxed” version will become the default expectation.

> Your criterion would suggest the answer of "no" to any of those cases, even though those cover much of the same use cases as flying, and possibly some new, more interesting ones.

Is it a problem though? Their existence are unrelated to how we categorize them.

That matters only in communication. “if everybody agrees” lowers/removes the risk of miscommunication.

If “hovercraft is flying” for you, but not for 50% the world, it makes it somewhat more difficult to communicate. (Easily solved with some qualifications, but that requires admission the questionability of “hovercraft is flying”)

> you're limiting the definition to that which is familiar, not that which is interesting.

You made an Interesting point - good food for thought.

Counterpoint: It seems natural and useful that only similar things get to use same word.

> And I don't think an AGI must be limited …

Could you expand on why does it matter and what would be impacted by such lenient (or strict) classification?

Relevant quote:

> This is the basic premise of cable pressurization: Keep the pressure within the cable in excess of the pressure that could be applied by standing water.

> checkbox software

Never heard this name before. Thx.

> there is also existing ExecutorService and futures in Java

Yes, virtual threads are an alternative also to those. (Kind of)

Each thread adds overhead.

Some usage types don’t care, some do.

From what I gather virtual threads are an alternative to “callback-hell” (js) or async coloring (python).

> Optimization, by definition, requires that something be "overdone"

I would disagree.

I guess word meanings differ slightly between your and my social circles.

E.g. “optimised for read load”.

Hype is fading, so usage decreases.

But you must admit that it is still useful, and usage will not drop to zero.

Not the parent, but there are couple of things current AI lack:

- learning from single article /book with lasting effect (accumulation of knowledge)

- arithmetics without unexpected errors

- gauging reliability of information it’s printing

BTW. I doubt that you’ll get satisfactory definition of “able to reason” (or “conscious” or “alive” or “chair”). As they define more an end or direction of a spectrum, not an exact cut off point.

Current llms are impressive and useful, but given how often they spout nonsense, it is hard to put them into “able to reason” category.

> It leaves the structures it touches barren and brittle

If overdone - definitely.

But there are plenty of cases where people forgot to add an index or used linked lists for search heavy stuff or issued rpc for every keystroke.