facile3232

Fair enough, the trust is certainly a stronger demonstration of commitment than most can offer.

The market itself is also arguably a massive form of AGI that well-predates the concept. I choose this interpretation when watching Terminator (any of them really).

TBF this doesn't imply anything about OpenAI's quest to make a chatbot that gets along with people at parties.

> What would it take for OpenAI to join the ranks of trillion dollar companies?

Some kind of market advantage at the dominant price point?

Threat to what? How do you figure they're a bigger threat to whatever you identify than any other chatbot company?

> to ensure no commercial interest could interfere with the paper.

How do they explain their taking ads, then? https://advertising.theguardian.com

There's zero assurance that they could provide that would convince me this doesn't come with influence over editorial matters. It's the same problem NPR has (shoutout to the 'old "National Petroleum Radio" moniker from the invasions of the oughts).

EDIT: you -> they

> The article says that the crystals don't affect the taste or scent.

That seems hard to believe, frankly.

> Strong interactions are notoriously difficult to calculate from the first principles.

??? Where does empiricism come in? Surely you need some kind of data to feed even raw assumptions. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting how "first principles" is employed here.

Maybe it's just iframes that are the issue but they were a devil and a half to get working in chrome (or blink ig) without relying on third party cookies.

Ah, I found the phrasing quite confusing.

Yea, and to be fair the leagues try to compensate for this with varying degrees of success by regulating how much you can spend, subsidizing poorer teams, etc.

But ultimately you run into issues like the colorado rockies where the owner just views it like an entertainment venue and basically refuses to invest in the team in any rational way. The entire model of competiton-through-investment doesn't make as much sense once you realize you can place butts in seats without a competent team to root for.

(And personally, i think it makes a lot of sense for the team to own itself, or a state to own a team, or something like that. I think the Green Bay Packers have a setup like this.)

It's also not possibly to divvy players rarely—sometimes you run into people who are truly extraordinary, and exorbitant salaries can help balance this, to debatable efficacy.

Edit: yup, https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders. Kind of an orthogonal issue to disproportionate spending of teams, though.

Also MSG, obviously.

Is "fake" really the right word here if people get the flavor, nutrition, and texture they want? I don't really give a damn if they figured out a way to bypass aging to achieve this.

> we want them to be a contest of human skill on the part of the athlete, not just the amount of money someone is willing to spend on the team

This is simply not reflected very well in how professional sports are structured. If this were really a priority teams wouldn't be privately owned. It has extremely negative effects on each sport, easily dwarfing the influence of performance enhancing drugs.

Anyway, I would absolutely love to see what the human body is capable of. To me, hearing a ban of performance enhancing drugs is a guarantee of a more boring and less competitive game. I understand the impetus of protecting children, but we're already buying and selling humans. How good of an influence was this to begin with?

If anything chrome is the engine with odd quirks you are forced to work around.

Content for kids strikes me as something you'd curate around an experience and value system you sell to parents. I can't imagine anything else would work very well.

Granted, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to build filters. I'm just rather pessimistic about a hands-off experience with such software.

Perhaps if liberals read non-liberals they would have acquired an imagination in the last two hundred years. Obviously that's far from the only path forward outside of your sick fantasies.

Ah! I just skipped the article. The paper is much more straightforward.

You're quite right; I think the "rationalists" tend to be a little more cynical (or realistic, as most would probably put it).

> If ideas matter, then spectacularly bad ideas should have spectacularly bad real world consequences.

to me this seems to imply ideas don't matter, or we wouldn't be living in a market-oriented society. I suppose there's still room for global warming to demonstrate your point.

on whom do you put the crimes of capital?

I think the "technological singularity" is just the rapture for people who listen to sam harris

> but expecting test scores to improve dramatically like this is not realistic

That seems like a problem for the reader, not a problem with the text. Why would the reader expect this? Is it the use of present tense in the title rather than past tense?

The deportations are just flashy cruelty to obscure everything else.

> Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.

Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will.

So I say, fuck it, let's just all accept that government is shitty and mostly exists to squeeze us for money. We can finally stop acting like it's representative of us. When y'all finally have had enough riots will work just as fine as they did before.

What's the point without a political pathway to remediate anything? We haven't done basically anything to fix what we were complaining about 50 years ago.

At least in prison they'll feed me or kill me, two things they'll otherwise refuse to do until you commit a crime.

Frankly, I would prefer a world where everyone agreed the government was shit but nobody could complain. It's better than people openly defending evil people and calling it the height of democracy. If that's democracy give me the PRC any day.

It's not even a coherent concept the way westerners use it. I would be much happier if we called it "acceptable speech" or something to acknowledge you can't call for dismembering your Tutsi cockroach neighbor. Idk why, maybe I'm just being sensitive.

"Free speech" as a right seems pretty useless without material rights. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. What does that even look like?

But we can trace all this crappy formulation of civics to the brain rot that is worshiping the enlightenment and founding fathers. Why is this still a thing in 2025? Nobody is putting a gun to your head to care about Jefferson or Locke or the actual basis of our society, Hobbes. We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow.

I don't really care, tbh. There are better rights to fight for: food, shelter, education, healthcare. If said freedom of speech had been to be used to fight for materially meaningful rights, I'd be a big fan. Most Americans never bothered to use the right in any way that improved this country. You don't use it, you lose it.

As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.

I agree. I took linear algebra through an online course. I can't imagine a worse way to learn the topic. I happily cheated on tests to pass the class.

Mind you, I already apply linear algebra daily—I simply refuse to waste my time computing basic operations on matrices by hand when that's why we have computers and partial credit isn't available.

All this makes sense.

Even attending college fifteen years ago, I didn't attend class. What was the point when it was clear the average undergrad class was just a group reading of a textbook? I am paying for the degree. The education became a distraction before I was born.

At least this bodes well for my grad school life.

I don't see any contradiction. What becomes standard business wear is often arbitrary, as is the stuff that sticks around. It's not like we've discovered a platonic ideal of dress.

I just wanna know when we can go back to formal robes. Superior in nearly every way for office work.