fallingknife

LLMs can't truth seek. They simply do not have that capability as they have no ability to directly observe the real world. They must rely on what they are told, and to them the "truth" is the thing they are told most often. I think you would agree this is a very bad truth algorithm. This is much the same as I have no ability (without great inconvenience) to directly observe the situation in SA. This means I am stuck in the same position as an LLM. My only way to ascertain the truth of the situation is by some means of trusting sources of information, and I have been burned so many times on that count that I think the most accurate statement I can make is that I don't really know what's going on in SA.

"brand safety" is just a term for aligning with a particular bias

Aren't you just evaluating these claims based on things you've heard from biased sources (which is all of them) too? How do you know that your biased perspective is any more correct than Grok's bias?

Has any AI company not been caught doing this? Grok is just doing it in the opposite direction. I hate it too, but let's not pretend we don't know what's going on here.

Computing power requirements and the fact that my subjective appraisal of the performance of these LLMs doesn't match the insane scaling curves that AI companies put out showing that their capabilities double every 6 months. Even if a 100x increase in computing power could equal a software engineer (and that's far from certain), that would be more expensive than a software engineer.

But really the burden of proof is on you here since you are making extraordinary claims of AI superintelligence replacing all jobs in 10-15 years. You are making the trillion pound baby argument, so you need to back it up.

Yeah, but he is extrapolating something going from common knowledge to specialist knowledge as a step towards it being something that nobody knows, and that's just not what it is at all.

What about Android? Is that also vulnerable?

My 3 month old son is twice as big as he was when he was born. He's on track to weigh 7.5 trillion pounds by age 10!

Who cares what most people know about plumbing and electrical wiring? It's not most people's job to fix it when it breaks.

There was a blackout in Canada caused by a solar storm in 1989. Has this changed dramatically since then?

The multi-modal hassle is why cars are so popular in the first place.

Quenching isn't random. The waste has a half life of 10 years. You can use an idiotic unit like total mass of material without taking into account level of radioactivity or half life, but that's not even worth discussing.

There is no threat of retaliation for reviews because hosts and guests can't see each other's reviews until the review period is expired or they have already left their own review.

Same energy to enter the orbit, but the kinetic energy per unit mass should be a whole lot higher at Venus than Earth, so each of your shots count for a lot more. But yeah, the main advantage is the moon. And you wouldn't launch things from the moon. You would launch pieces of the moon from mass drivers.

The situation I replied to assumed they were both inhabitable planets which I assume means Earth like atmosphere on Venus. The thick atmosphere complicates things, but I don't think you actually have to hit the ground. Tunguska didn't even get near the ground and it still leveled 1000 km^2. Also if Venus has the atmosphere there's no point of a war since there's no benefit to conquest in either direction.

> The super conducting metals required for confinement randomly stop superconducting.

Yeah, that doesn't happen

> The amount of radioactive materials produced from the experiments are many times those produced in fission reactors.

And neither does this

Luckily we are up gravity well from them and also have a moon as a great source of low launch cost projectiles.

I was thinking that since apparently Hawking radiation applies to all objects (I thought it was just black holes), maybe it would be interesting to try to actually observe it on the moon. But then I ran the numbers and, if the authors are correct, the moon is losing about 1 electron mass to Hawking radiation every 10^37 years!

> It would be a major setback for society for us to return to the pre-1940s days of "gentlemen scientists" where science and other academic pursuits were only reserved for the independently wealthy and for those who relied on patronage. Modern technological innovations are made possible through research, and it's important that research efforts are funded in a regular manner.

How much of a setback would this really be, though? The US government spent $200 billion of R&D in 2024. Of that $200 billion, $140 billion of it was military related which is probably not in danger. Including private spending, total r&d was around $900 billion. So even if the $60 billion of non-military government research spending was entirely eliminated, that would be only around a 7% decline in spending.

But still that would be bad. That $60 billion is a lot to replace from private funding. I don't know if it would be a net negative, though. It seems like privately funded research can seriously outperform government funding because when private actors fund research, they do it for the specific reason that they want the research done. Contrast this with public funding which has to meet a lot of political goals that have nothing to do with science. Look what SpaceX has been able to accomplish vs NASA. NASA has great scientists and engineers and a much bigger budget than SpaceX did, but the problem is that their rocket building program was more of a jobs program and a way to spread money to a lot of congressional districts than it was about building rockets. Whereas SpaceX had exactly one goal and that was to build rockets.

I also think that it's important to fund research in a regular manner, but is government a more reliable way than private patrons? It feels like its the opposite. If we had a government that really cared about science and committed to funding it in an effective way and never using it as a cover to funnel money to political causes I do think it would be better than relying on private funding, but when I read a list of cancelled grant like this it doesn't seem like we do. https://airtable.com/appGKlSVeXniQZkFC/shrFxbl1YTqb3AyOO?jnt...

Is that your standard here? It has to be 55% to be a problem? If someone working for me diverted 1% of their company budget to political nonsense then that would be their last act as an employee. If you are mandated to spend taxpayer money on science and you spend any of it on garbage like that, you are stealing from the public.

I agree. If Albert Einstein had gone with your sensible approach he could have quickly ruled out his silly idea of relativity as impossible and gone back to his more important work of approving patent applications.

I see you've tried to change the subject from six figure profs and admins at a private university to teachers working part time over the summer, but that's not what I said and you know it.

Make $150K and you're in the top 10% of the US and top 1% of the world. But go right ahead and waste your golden ticket complaining about how unfair it is that you aren't in that top 0.1%. And if they were, then they would be bitter about that 0.01% because if you make over $100K and can't be happy with it, your problem isn't financial.

Yeah, I make in that range and I'm disgusted by people at my income level who complain about money and are bitter and envious of people richer than them instead of enjoying their wealth. Really a waste of life. Got dealt a great hand and somehow find a way to ruin it.

I'm using "liberal" very loosely here as the prevailing political establishment from the 1930s to 1990s when the Republicans started splitting off from that coalition. Though you could even argue that Bush II was a continuation of the same. You can cherry-pick dates if you like, but even in that cherry-picked 24 year range Democrats controlled the senate 18-6 and the house 24-0 and the Democrats had unified control of congress and the presidency for 4 years to 0 for the Republicans. The Democratic party was dominant in US politics from 1932 to 1992 and that is not really arguable. The modern US administrative state was build by primarily liberal Democrats with plenty of cooperation from moderate Republicans (who don't really exist anymore) and with opposition from segregationist southern Democrats (who also don't exist anymore). You can argue that they did a good job (and I would argue that for a lot of it they did), but you can't claim that they didn't do it and that they aren't the political establishment of the modern America state.

> Once you got a degree, you were in a different socioeconomic class,

Yeah, maybe in 1960 when 8% of Americans had a degree, but not today when 40% do: https://educationdata.org/education-attainment-statistics

A degree can either be a ticket to a high status job or common. It can't be both. As a society we have resolved this contradiction by making a tiered system where people nominally have the same degree, but actually only the ones from exclusive, high status schools count. And somehow the low status degrees cost almost as much as the high status ones even though they have a fraction of the value. But apparently a lot of people didn't get the memo and still think their low status degree is a ticket to a high status job.

> but degrees were available to those who could get them

So you are saying that degrees are less available now even though the number of people who have them has gone up 5x since 1960? Citation needed, because that fundamentally makes no sense.

> Now whether you get into college depends, most of all, on the class you're born into.

So you are telling me that in 1960 when 8% of people had a college degree, those 8% were a meritocratic sampling of all classes of society, but today when 40% of people have a degree, that 40% is somehow only the upper middle class? Again, citation needed, because that fundamentally makes no sense.

> High School is just 4 more years of school after you've already done 8 in K-8. It has no special properties.

This is probably also true. High school standards have been lowered so much that everybody with a pulse can graduate so the degree is meaningless in terms of educational achievement. Basically just a filter now that says "I am at least one tiny step above a total retard or a complete 100% screw up."

I worked jobs part time as young as 14. Child labor laws are mainly about keeping kids in school rather than protecting them from anything bad because with our society defined around credentials, failing to obtain them is bad for that child's future. But that's just a rule we made up. There's absolutely no reason that a 14 year old who has finished 8th grade and knows how to read and do basic math couldn't go off and apprentice to a trade and be successful. In 1910 only 10% of Americans had finished high school and we still had a perfectly well functioning society. And at that time only 2 % had college degrees and still we were in an era of rapid scientific progress and economic growth.

Universities are the main gatekeepers of the class based oppressive system you complain about. The current bureaucratic governing structure of the US has been created by the liberals during the period from the New Deal through the early 90s when Democrats had almost unbroken control of congress. So, regardless of whether conservative complaints are valid, liberals are the correct people to complain about if you are unhappy with the current system because they are the ones who built it.

> those pesky general ed requirements that might accidentally tell people how to fight against the elites running the system

There is no group of people I have encountered in my life that I have as much contempt for as the professors and administrators at the $60K tuition (I went for free) private university that pretended like they were fighting against the elites that run the system when they are, if fact, those elites. The level of delusion in the non hard science parts of academia is absolutely mind blowing.

Those who want education on subjects they are not employed in or "a broader more holistic understanding of the world" (whatever that means) will get it themselves. Those who don't want it won't get it even if you send them to college. College is just 4 more years of school after you've already done 13 in K-12. It has no special properties.

I can't and I didn't. I never said anything about barriers to entry. I'm talking about concentration here and why the market is dominated by airlines with hundreds of planes instead of airlines with 10 planes. Barriers to entry are inevitable in capital intensive industries.

Concentration seems much more prevalent in heavily regulated markets e.g. utilities / airlines. In many cases regulators have even encouraged this e.g.finance.

There is no default for unregulated markets. It's a question of whether the economies of scale outweigh the added costs from the complexity that scale requires. It costs close to 100x as much to build 100 houses, run 100 restaurants, or operate 100 trucks as it does to do 1. That's why these industries are not very concentrated. Whereas it costs nowhere close to 100x for a software or financial services company to serve 100x thee customers, so software and finance are very concentrated.

The effect of regulation is typically to increase concentration because the cost of compliance actually tends to scale very well. So businesses that grow face an decreasing regulatory compliance cost as a percent of revenue.

That's obvious. I think the question is more one of how long will they be throttled for? Even if there was a domestic or foreign nontariffed supplier for 100% of the goods in question it would still take significant lead time for the new orders to be filled and even more for cases where capacity needs to be increased.