No, I translated it to Haskell, with a custom container runtime.
4,785 karma · joined July 7, 2014
> As opposed to what?
As opposed to the famously agile and youthful atmosphere of American legislation in technology.
/s
That's also how politics has worked since (at least) 2015. Who needs evidence about outlandish claims when the vibes are right?
Anyway, me and my friends are going to go eat some cats and dogs.
How did you reach that conclusion? Apple has $62B just sitting around. They could hire as many AI people as they want and have Siri compete with the frontier models. They certainly can do AI.
I guess that are choosing not to do that because that's just not their business and they'd prefer to avoid the upcoming AI bloodbath. Why develop a search engine/social network/frontier AI when you can just use someone else's?
If I put on my conspiracy hat, it looks like Google is pushing to expand the web API as a means to maintain its lead in the browser market by making it harder for other browsers (i.e. Firefox) to maintain feature parity.
We understand that AI responses are generated through probabilistic means. We also understand that human responses are generated through probabilistic means. Neither is inherently more representative of true understanding than the other.
You mean when Twitter "permanently" banned Trump in January of 2021, after the 2020 election (which he lost)? Which election do you suppose that interfered with?
That's not an accurate representation of this conversation.
Moreover, that's precisely the kind of work that AIs can do. So why would anyone pay you to do that, whether or not you find it satisfying?
Exactly. That's why people are upset, and why more people are going to be upset as AI subsumes more parts of society. The handbags are just an analogy.
I wouldn't say that independent human thought will become "extinct," but rather that it will be severely devalued. And I don't see any technical reason why AIs can't replace every aspect of human thought, including creativity.
> So weird that we in the tech industry are so willing to ruin humanity for the sake of a sick IPO.
Not all of us. But the people who are making the decisions about AI have their own set of values.
And just like coders and mathematicians, that process of discovery is liable to be overtaken by AI, eventually. What does a biologist do then?
Good for you, but that's not a job, and no one is going to award you a PhD for doing that.
You are willfully misinterpreting the comment. You know exactly what they mean, which is that the meaning behind the craft is gone. The value of performing the craft is not in itself, but in the feeling of creating something of value, something useful to other people.
Yes, the ruling elite are typically outnumbered by the masses. It matters little: by historical standards, the ruling powers have virtually always leveraged their power to exploit those who don't have power. No reason to assume that streak will end.
Don't "overt" and "visible" mean the same thing in this context?
I expect that motivates exactly zero percent of the criticism that Musk gets.