Minor benefits around clearing and settlement, but these allow for 24/7 even if the clearing house is not so. On the other hand, I don’t see how they should be able to block it. It is a derivative product, can MSFT block e.g. puts on its stock? Stock ownership gives rights, not obligations.
I am so sorry to hear this. I enjoyed visiting his web page July, when I came upon a couple of emails he had there, which were eye opening as they made some of the philosophical thoughts behind causal sets much clearer. A huge loss, but he did contribute amazing work.
Sorkin is great. I think causal sets make some things simpler but other more mysterious. I also found t’ Hooft’s automata and Spekkens toy illuminating in different ways.
Let’s take it the other way around. If it is so dangerous and needs to be regulated, why is it not dangerous enough to be nationalised like an army? Even in this case, for countries with militia, such as US, why people are trusted to care a gun but would not be trusted to run a model. The fear that local models will soon be sufficient for most workloads is palpable. This is not regulatory capture for competition it is for devaluation of their product.
I think logic is squarely in his field, and even with simple logic, proposing the importance of second order effects on people who are dying is not tenable. Personally, knowing that he is indeed one of the smartest people around, and definitely much smarter than me, I cannot but be a bit worried that going with this example indicates traces of panic in the face of a shifting world. He’s smart but human, and maybe these weaknesses are not to bemoan but to celebrate in our current context.
Genuine question. How many big problems were solved by people who took the safe path for PhD? I would intuit there’s high correlation of unsafe PhD and big problem solvers.
Maybe they should target more ambitious results now that they can solve their other results in 15 minutes? This spirit of racing in academia is insane. Get in before the door closes.
This would that the proofs would be almost done anyway, which statistically could not be the case, or that these mathematicians were already progressing thanks to ChatGPT. Still a provenance question, but the impact of AI is unquestionable with regards to outcome.
Gödel blocked the path to axiomatic derivation of a full consistent body of mathematics as far as I understand. Mathematicians and AI are not working in these constraints but rather with these constraints.
I thought that was from the outset the intent of the Hilbert program, to automate mathematics. And mathematicians were behind it. Cannot see why they would be concerned when a different way to do the same, not subject to Gödel incompleteness, is working out. Maybe the frustration is that they were not the ones building it.
Ranking by influence. Claiming that adjacent personalities have influence that could even be compared to that of AI behemoths signing agreements with the President of the US is not going to convince anyone.
When two opposing forces meet, you don’t get truth from either side, you get it by critically looking at what’s left between the lines. And it doesn’t look good for EA if I go by the discussion here. Lots of pushing problematic to crazies and anecdotal altruism that is not in any way related to EA principles specifically. I don’t judge. Everyone is entitled to do what they think is best. But we can also be concerned on our side on the impact EAs actions can have on us who are not in agreement with the vagueness of it. And we can say that it is looking as much about altruism as Scientology is about science.
Any conspiracy has simple goals. Control, power, money sometimes as a means to the first two. It’s not even conspiratorial right now to assess that EA members go for these. Not all of them, but the ones that matter in this discussion.
I wouldn’t be against the co opt interpretation and I do believe people will be co opting something both with good and bad or crazy intentions. The thing is, if a fraction that co opts is so overwhelmingly outranks everyone else, then the original intent may end up the fringe. From my perspective the issue starts with the name. Why effective? The moment you introduce an optimisation problem you open the back door to biases. I would suggest blind altruism. Engineers can accept readily that random processes can optimise. Let the randomness optimise blindly and just be altruistic. You don’t have to publish an altruism balance sheet.
The smear campaign will work if that’s all that’s out there. Are they public with their beliefs/principles or does someone need to go through levels of billions valuation to know the truth.
You may do that with honesty and just be a useful front for the heads behind the curtain. In their calculations you are still the value of 32 prawns or something.
When I talk about ineffective altruism I talk about accumulating capital and shutting everyone out of innovation in the name of regulatory protection. Nothing like a daddy to protect us sounds like altruism.
I am not familiar with their beliefs (open to learning). But what circulates is troubling. E.g. statistically optimising for future even if it means harming current can be bad dressed in an excuse. Assigning value e.g. to lives (from prawns to humans) can also be a statistical way to do harm with an excuse. Overall, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…
A little bit like electricity plants. Countries will nationalise for sovereignty reasons, as China already does probably. And that’s not bad for people given current trajectory.