The 'skin in the game' is I go to a competitor and use a different product.
757 karma · joined August 4, 2018
I suppose the point I was making, was that the Engineers and Physicists and others, while working on the Manhattan project couldn't be doing other things.
And to develop those people takes years of education and training, and most people don't have the cognitive ability to do that kind of work. The pipeline to produce more of those workers, is skinny indeed.
Whereas now, we're limited by how many electrons we can put to work. The question then becomes, "Could our electricity be put to better use?"
We're now at stage where we can turn energy into thought to generate expertise on demand.
Not a professional programmer, so it's a genuine question rather than a statement.
They should care if it actually has errors.
They should care if it has claude-isms.
But it certaintly seems like they don't care, at this point in time, about those things.
I'll take your feedback on board. But I'm not calling them stupid, or a bad person. I'm saying their goals are not aligned with my idea of a finished product.
But the creator doesn't care because their goal isn't to make a tool people want to use. They make a minimum viable product, that looks super impressive but lacks that final polish and move on.
It infuriates me enough, that when I get the time I'm going to recreate the 'lighthouses of the world' example I saw the other day. Only I'm going to do it right...
But it looks like in the US, you would need to be self employed or own a business where it is an expense. Which is a bummer.
Considering this has gone unflagged for 11 years... Finding a flaw in Rust’s safety guarantees doesn’t mean that they provide no benefit, over a programming language without them.
They love money so much, you could swear they're American!
I appreciate the boldness of this project, it has an element of sci-fi to it. Building a base at the south pole to bury sensors in ice to measure elusive particles. The stuff of dreams!
There's something about the way this is drafted that irks me. It reads like AI, but not floridly so. Mostly, it's the optimistic assumptions layered throughout. That management care about reasonableness, that the reasons it actually doesn't want the details is because it 'trusts' you.
No, more likely is that this leader didn't want you to spew minutae. "Keep it simple simon, I want results not a play by play."
I’ll often put a long stream of consciousness on the page, or jot down rough meeting minutes, then ask ChatGPT to “summarise this for an email”. The result is shorter, clearer and easier to read.
AI amplifies the habits of the person using it. If they’re lazy or dim, then it's like giving a monkey a gun.
A necessary move, because the US isnt acting like an ally anymore.
Hence the increased cooperation and agreements with the EU and China.
Whereas the benefit of opening it up for people to make accessories, play around with it from a marketing perspective, or even just to marvel at them would be of greater benefit.
I resorted to getting chatgpt to make a summary... Which I am loathe to do:
"Chorleywood replaced long fermentation with intensive mechanical mixing, allowing Britain to turn its previously unsuitable low-protein wheat into cheap mass-produced white bread and substantially reduce its reliance on imported Canadian grain."
I've always argued that the consciousness question hasn't properly considered the 'what then' questions. Other than to be fearful about what a conscious AI might do if granted free will.
It's a tool like any other. It assists the intelligent, but makes the lazy - lazi-er.
There is no scientific consensus on it!
Although I doubt there's any harm in eating more fruit.
Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but if an AI were to have a first person perspective, would that necessarily change how we operate? There's not an option for me to pick here as conscious, but no further consideration warranted.
There are plenty of arguably conscious beings we already subjucate in one way or another. People for labour, animals as livestock, dogs as companions and so on.
I think people think that if AI were conscious that would materially change how we interact with them and how we use them for society. But I have my doubts about that, given our nature.
I think humans ascribe consciousness to themselves and others, and this is a useful trait in understanding how another being is going to act. Perhaps I have answered my own question. We are concerned with how a conscious AI may act if it has a sense of independence?
Mostly it meant that people gave you a wide berth, as learner drivers are unpredictable at times. So basically, what the sign intends.
It surprises me to hear that about NZ? As I think of NZ, as our friendlier cousin.
Just goes to show that our experiences are always hyperlocalised, and it's hard to actually make generalisations without actual data.
I think there's an assumption that current costs, which are high, will remain high.
Most of that seems to be going to model development, rather than model operation, which is the product we all use.
To me the most likely option will be, that development slows and prices rise somewhat, as they can't keep burning cash forever. But I'm willing to pay a little bit more, considering how powerful the tool is.
I think that AI is going to become just another utility people pay to stay relevant. Same as their internet, electricity or gas.
You can already see it now, with the rise of populism and to a lesser extent socialism.
A non-consumption economy will only happen if the masses can be somehow oppressed, or pursuaded to bliss out peacefully.. In the long run of history, I'm going to bet on the masses pulling through.
It's fascinating. I can almost hear the character speak it aloud.
And who am I to judge? Maybe that is the reality.