We are all caught up in our bubble. That’s why being exposed to someone else’s is useful. The moment you dismiss it as their bubble you assert not just their wall but also yours.
Do they make more money on average? Does any additional income cover the increase in cost of living? Becoming psychologically poor is much harder than becoming psychologically rich. I doubt that balance of payments goes anywhere near your average Joe’s pocket.
But that’s cosmogony, not cosmology. Cosmology can just explore the cosmos that is there not having to worry about why it came to be. If there’s a causality of causality, then what’s the cause of itself.
It is frontier in the sense it is exploring an unexplored domain. I do agree on questioning the comparatives though. Speed/cost is indeed relevant for problems that can be framed as structured decisions only. The question is, would defining a structured decision model be a structured decision model itself? This would significantly increase the application domain.
I am in the quarter of aphantasics that report no imagined sensations of any kind, no inner sound, smell, taste or touch. I do have some very basic imagery occasionally while dreaming, a bit like Dali’s drawings. Never faces. I am also remarkably bad in remembering faces (or names) but recognise them just fine when recent. I don’t think in words, shapes, or relations. I think in words that are on the tip of my tongue and make sentences in their “rhyming”.
It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. If religion is not needed for control, then your argument is weakened. It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion.
Zealots will zealot. That is less of a religion issue and more a societal one. People will find something to be fanatical about and religion is the perfect candidate for that, the distance between belief and fanaticism is the easiest to cross. While it’s worth the while to fight extremism, this is more of a maintenance than a completion exercise. With the challenges of our times, as different as we may perceive them, this may be a tough exercise and not necessarily one where focusing on “fixing”religion is the most promising path. The happy times of prosperity and atheism were also the best times to be in a religion. I think the most promising path is to help people not need a God that saves them from the challenges of their day to day lives.
As a non extremist believer, in the sense of believing extremely but not passionate about influencing others’ decisions, life is not disposable in service, “in service” is an available disposition for life. Take what you want of my statement, as I did of yours.
I would wager that’s more acceptable if said learning is not in competition with the user. If they didn’t actually produce results but created the model only, then that could be advantageous for users too. But the moment they absorb your work to sell it, or for marketing, it’s a different moral ground.
But now people do, and it still works. How is this dissimilar to controlling the media in the past? Maybe can be more specialised, but superficially at least O don’t see significant content specialisation, rather the opposite, consumption herding.
For practical uses they are there. Arguably the frontier models are worse for some of these practical tasks. And keep in mind, people will use maybe frontier for 1/10th of the work, planning and review, and go open source for rest. The question is if they manage to impose outside us. If not, they are losing competitiveness.
I think that anyone who has not experienced the slow churn of driving a car with the engine light on for years, some duct tape holding something in it, is missing nothing. But I still feel like a child with a base modern family car. It is the hint of time travel we are allowed.
I would argue people getting paid to play chess was a short lived phenomenon anyway if you put it in context. The transition there is less related to the introduction of chess engines and more related to the shift in the media landscape.
I am almost convinced and really like the core idea. My challenge has always been, with regards to surfaces and essences, why would a pattern be reflected as a word in context versus as syntax in different languages or contexts. Why not have just words? What is it that differentiates those analogy making devices. I don’t think we get a solid answer on that, and if it’s not answered then someone could think; is there a category higher than analogy and analogy is just one of its implementations? And if yes, then we are back to the drawing paper as we cannot explain something by pointing to its instantiation.
Hearing that something is solvable is already a hint. I don’t think leveraging this knowledge is ethical. They could go after a different problem but didn’t.
I don’t know, a stab carries lots of bias in interpretation. We might be reflecting our conscious experience markers on a different conscious experience. And selectively so, e.g. lobsters welfare. From my perspective, this is the hypocrisy of these welfare statements. We are already happy to kill beings we consider conscious to feed ourselves but suddenly sensitive with a consciousness we don’t know if it’s there. I would wager this is more out of fear of the idea of this consciousness rather than out of welfare.
In Greek they are still atrociously bad, still feels like they translate an English thought. Nevertheless, the etymological insights they can give on words or Ancient Greek passages is making reading the ancients really fun.
How to not learn from your mistakes and actually make them worse. I wonder how many valuable alliances they lost just because of that fear. Whoever was willing to sign was already probably not going to be a threat.
I don’t think collapse is by itself a good predictor of change. People in collapse just bow easier. Change of this scale unfortunately comes from terminal and collective despair. Let’s not rule out either normal change, not every marginal action needs to make things worse. The system might have enough variation still to turn around. In short, despair or its anticipation are not optimal strategies.
For any critical workload a chip is considered trash after 5-7 years. They still run , of course, but increased incidents on platforms that are supposed to be 99.99 are hard to work with. Now if you mean there’s unused stock of those , that would maybe work, but I am not aware of significant unused stocks.
I don’t even think comments are useful at all given AI. I can ask my AI to explain a piece of code if I am stuck and I will get a reply in context of what I am looking for.
I am not sure of the premise. You can have a filter which takes garbage in and outputs the clean data from the garbage, a denoiser. Also your definition of slop is not specific to slop. Any input can be garbage, including this human sourced and thought comment.
You maybe work things out on the fly by matching against abstract patterns. Could this be an indication not of lack of memory but of specialisation in abstract memory?
We agree in intuition more than it seems you think we do. This paper is mapping the intuition to the philosophical discourse of substrate independence. Track its course from Putnam and Searle to Chalmers Shagrir and Anderson Piccinini, and you will see where it fits as a small contribution. The part we will keep on disagreeing though is calling whatever is inconvenient broken …