WhyOhWhyQ

+1 for https://skilldrick.github.io/easy6502/

You can go through that in one pleasant sitting.

How so?

"I am of the opinion that A.I. can already do all of the jobs that we, as humans, do"

I think the most significant impact of the recent AI revolution is just to lower the bar of expectations humanity has for itself, thereby making a statement like that true.

I quit social media 12 years ago and it's been an amazing boost to my personal psychology and productivity. My life is 10x better without it. I've forgotten many acquaintances and gained many more, and forgotten them again. Life is like that, but the core group of people is there, and I'm happy with that.

Without looking at the actual report, it is a pretty meaningless statistic. Maybe it's more significant by job category, but if hiring can either go up or down, and you say about half think it's going down, you haven't suggested a non-trivial conclusion.

It's a brilliant marketing model. Humans are inherently highly interested in anything which could be a threat to their well-being. Everything they put out is a tacit promise that the viewer will soon be economically valueless.

Any evidence it's actually better than a paralegal? I doubt it is.

I'm with innocentoldguy. IDE's just feel bad to use.

I'm always just so pleased that the most famous mathematician alive today is also an extremely kind human being. That has often not been the case.

Is there any reason not to believe that humans are so stupid and amoral that they would never support a complete overhaul of the food system which eliminates suffering in one go? Even the moral leader Noam Chomsky has publicly stated that he just doesn't care enough about animal suffering to think about it.

Probably the best animals are going to get are ad hoc reductions to their suffering which are aligned with decreased economic costs, or which target niche markets like vegans.

My comment said that the new process is painless and you say I am mistaken because the current process is virtually painless.

Also, virtually painless doesn't sound like painless to me. It sounds like a nice thing to tell people to convince them grinding up conscious creatures has no negative aspect.

"There's also the debate on whether one-day-old chicks are conscious, but I don't know the literature enough to have a strong opinion."

Why comment if you admit you don't know what you're talking about? There's lots of debate over whether you are conscious. Does that meaning grinding you up is plausibly a nice thing to do?

I assume from the headline with this new way a conscious creature doesn't experience immense pain.

Peering deep enough amounts to making 'selfish' a meaningless word.

Would you say the apparent contradiction between what you and other commenters are saying is partly explained by the high volume of games you're playing? Or do you think there is some other reason?

I appreciate your authentically cynical attitude.

The simpler explanation is that LLMs are not very good.

Okay. So you are a person who does not care if what they are saying is true. Got it!

I said 50 years from now.

People like you who think you're going to come out on top of this by throwing everyone else under the bus, treating them like consumers, are a huge part of the problem. That kind of parasitic behavior is not "providing value" except in the cynical way that it let's you devalue other people's lives for your own gain.

Why would anybody create stuff that the AI companies are just going to instantly subsume and reproduce far more cheaply? There is not going to be a meaningful economy based on creativity in the next 50 years, any more than there is one now. And then it is going to be far worse. The actual "winners" are just going to be the people who through arbitrary processes like fortunate birth or lucky circumstances are granted admission into elite institutions.

You're making an unverifiable claim. How are we supposed to know that the undetected good AI exists at all? Everything I've seen explicitly produced by any of these models is in uncanny valley territory still, even the "good" stuff.

The Zoomers have the advantage that the bar is pretty low these days.

They'll be selling overpriced licenses per computer to every fortune 500 company.

In college my Professor told me he was disappointed that the string theory hype was dying down because it made for a great subfield of algebraic geometry.

I agree with everything you said in your previous post. The LLM as a search engine might basically eat Google's lunch in the same way the internet ate cable tv's lunch. Cable tv was a terrible product due to the advertising, and you could escape the BS by watching stuff online. Now look where we are.

I played with it a year ago and it really hasn't improved much since then. I even had it produce a few things similar to your battle ship demo.

And next year I don't see it improving much either if the best idea anybody has it just to give it more data, which seems to be the mantra in ML circles. There's not an infinite supply of data to give it.

Any reason why you don't recommend discussions/lectures with Roger Penrose? Or are his theories considered conventional? Genuine question.

This has always been one of my go-to fun facts.

I think that primary causes of assuredness in such conspiratorial matters is 1) political (Epstein didn't kill himself and the people currently in power must be to blame!) and 2) the desire many people have for the world to be more exciting and interesting than it is (this is the ultimate cause of many kinds of magical thinking).

Why's that? Just because you're vindictive or something?

I second this. I also experience this with Youtube. If Youtube monetized the part where you're scrolling looking for a video they would 10x their ad revenue.