suoduandao3

"Technically correct - the best kind"

The scenario you lay out does worry me, but is that not also an argument against strong regulations of AI to minimize the chance of AI only being available to authoritarians? These tools can be weapons in a tyrant's hands, so we should be sure to arm the citizenry?

IOW, is it not still an argument for the accelerationist side and against the caution side, even if it's not driven by optimism?

The schism between AI accelerationists and doomers is reminiscent of the rift between people who are pro- and anti- widespread entheogen use. I see both as a way to contact nonhuman intelligences, and I predict that if anyone cares to do a survey, they'd find that concerns about doing so via DMT will correlate tightly with concerns about doing so via concerns about doing so via LLMs. The major difference being that entheogens are a fairly mature technology and LLMs are the new scary thing.

As someone who is perhaps a bit unbalanced to the accelerationist camp I perceive the argument for caution a concern about too much change too quickly, particularly to existing authority structures. It's easy to dismiss most of those arguments as fear of the existing authority to losing control of a population with different priorities. Are there arguments from that side that aren't vulnerable to that dismissal?

Not a computer vision engineer here - do we just not know how the human brain recognizes objects or does it do so in a way that's hard to reproduce in silicon?

Tesla did and is betting on battery costs coming down due in part to tech under development and they could have been on the wrong side of that bet. I think unlike Theranos, battery tech has a semipredictable cost curve

My taxes aren't funding that terrorist group.

I would go so far as to say it's evidence there isn't - GPT-4 doesn't need hype beyond word of mouth, Q* is clearly not in that situation.

The fact OpenAI wants to hype something right now is probably noteworthy.

Like Apple and Microsoft I imagine.

I actually viscerally dislike unions, due to my two experiences of having to work with them. But I know they can be good from my mother's testimony of her own union, and it's her historical take on how unions first formed that I shared above.

Ultimately, I think a qualified support of unions in principle is going to bring pro-union folks towards the center much more effectively than a denouncement.

A lot of what Musk says and does sounds ridiculous. That doesn't make it wise to dismiss out of hand.

I actually agree that a lot of unions reinforce an us-vs-them mentality that might be necessary in local disputes but certainly isn't as good as having everyone's incentives aligned. What I think Musk might be missing in this context is that European unions have a deep history in the guild system and are related not just to bargaining with employers but also disseminating best practices and standards, so they add a lot of value as well.

I'm pretty sure those awful recipe stories are just there so an advertiser thinks you saw their ad when you click 'skip to recipe'. Or maybe that's just a story I tell myself to make sense of things.

because advertisers make X worse?

I think he wants to be polarizing. It's not the same thing.

Or a lot of billionaires are dying right now (Charlie Munger comes to mind)

I think though that most of the people on that list had their net worths decrease last year. To my understanding this article is pointing to a pretty short-term trend, though maybe an important one.

It's an interesting model and in my opinion, provides a much better model for the 'fourth turning' pattern than the mechanism put forward by the authors. The predictable return on capital Picketty points to after all only happens during times of stability, during times of instability wealth disparities actually decrease. If too much concentration of wealth leads to crisis and crisis is a 'distributing' mechanism this is basically a self-correcting dynamic.

I think we have an inflated respect for modern medicine because it gets a lot of the credit for health outcomes we actually owe to modern sanitation.

There was a brief moment in North America where almost every worker belonged to a union but employers hadn't figured out offshoring yet. The adjustment definitely was hard on American workers, but the fact that it came with a huge benefit to developing country workers is conspicuously overlooked by most of the 'late stage capitalism' narrative.

Is your argument that in trying to avoid war as a source of external work, people are following anyone with an alternative vision for external work with Elon Musk being one person putting such a vision forward?

Getting a bit philosophical, I believe that the problem of 'defining a problem completely' is where the practical application of 'how then should we live?' gets self-referential. Startups spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to figure out their customers' problems, drilling down, pivoting, etc. It's the challenge of silicon valley.

And the more one increases the search space the more primary that question of defining the problem becomes. Whether the execution is handled by chatGPT or a human coder, it looks to me like defining the problem we want to solve is the majority of our current frontier.

I miss WordPerfect. Maybe it was the novelty but it had such enjoyable fonts.

Right back atcha pal. Crypto trades full transparency for full autonomy. It's hell for authoritarian regimes and corrupt middlemen both. 99% of people against crypto benefit from one of those two.

I'm sure the anti-crypto crowd would like nothing better.

What, and trust the people who have been doing QE for half my life with the soundness of my medium of exchange? The same people who froze the bank accounts of peaceful protestors in my capitol city last year?

I'll abandon crypto when it becomes the second-best alternative to a state-controlled money supply. The shenanigans of the Davos crowd are becoming too weird to do otherwise.

*Much easier to stop, much harder to track. A bank doesn't have a publicly auditable ledger the way crypto does, it can only be traced with the assent of the bank and their policies vary.

The distinction matters.

probably whatever legal investigation is happening about the real source of the funds.

no, fission reactor is any nuclear reactor where atoms become more, smaller atoms (fusion reactors are the opposite of that). There's plenty of fission reactors, most of them built with heavy government support.

common sense?

You may find this interview interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tTJR9vqWB4

surely there are some countries on earth where fission reactors could be developed without government interference if that was all it took.