p-e-w

> Read the words specifically on how humanity treats itself and its surrounding environment

I did read them. They sound incredibly generic to me, and actually more like a colonial parody of what tribespeople supposedly believe than like anything genuine.

Tribal membership today is often a formal status first and foremost. It’s quite possible that the authors spend their whole day on their smartphones. They almost certainly don’t live like the ancestors they invoke in this message.

Who is this person who considers himself an “elder family brother” to humanity as a whole? Imagine a technologist speaking in such terms; they’d get publicly crucified.

While I grant you that the authors don’t appear to express generic luddite sentiments, nothing in this letter suggests that their understanding of AI extends even a millimeter below the surface.

> So we ask a question we believe is more fundamental than yours: what other values could artificial intelligence really have? > > You are the only example it has. > > What did you expect?

Who are these people that speak of humanity as “you”, as if they don’t belong to it (or, considering the tone of this message, believe themselves to be above it somehow)?

> We have lived here and cared for this mountain before there was a Colombia.

So the authors of this “message” are simultaneously trying to claim the spiritual heritage of people who had no connection to the modern world at all, and commenting on the most modern phenomenon in existence.

I do wonder how they would react to a machine learning PhD telling them that he is concerned about their beliefs involving a mountain.

> SO wasn't a discussion forum, it was wikipedia for programming.

They changed what they wanted to be multiple times, and even after they had settled on a policy they didn’t enforce it consistently.

> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

Uh, no.

StackOverflow is and has long been one of the most hostile places on the web, I’m not denying that. But this unprecedented drop in activity is 100% because of AI. Their product is as obsolete as horse-drawn carriages.

> Yet there is a demand for version control for nontechnical people. And I know this because I’ve seen enough files called “copy of important thing” or “important thing 2”.

This demonstrates LACK OF demand for technical version control, since the system you describe has been used since forever and found to be good enough.

I thought this was a setup to a joke when I read it.

There are a million frontends designed to simplify Git for non-programmers. In fact, lots of office software now has version management built-in. Very few people use it. This isn’t a technology problem.

We don’t need version control for legislative bills. We need journalists that track down who tried to insert what, summarize it, and present it to the public with context. That would satisfy the oversight purpose without getting lost in technicalities.

Our problem is that the press isn’t doing their job, not that legislation doesn’t have a commit graph. The latter, even if it existed, would not fix the former.

> Literally half of the code in operation I the world is still COBOL.

There’s no way this is even remotely true. JavaScript alone is probably 90+%, considering it’s on almost every website.

So there were mathematicians who would have solved Navier-Stokes, Quasi-Riemann, and ETH, if only AI hadn’t snatched away and finished off their work they were just wrapping up?

People will be getting second-hand embarrassment when they read these comments in the future.

> Perhaps there will be a disaster is waiting with all these backdoors and Ai supremacy.

Absolutely. AI only needs to bring the keys, and everything else will be waiting for it on a silver platter. And AI is really good at making spare keys.

That assumption has certainly been vindicated, considering what happened to Apple after he was gone.

Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results. Most electoral systems already give unequal weight to different votes based on district sizes etc., so gerrymandering is only a change of degree and intention, not of how democracy fundamentally works.

Reddit did. There is no question about this for anyone who has used it for that long.

Not really. The past 10 years have seen huge masses of people mobilized worldwide for changing the status quo, and the status quo absolutely has changed as a result. Maybe not in the way you would have wanted, but it’s impossible to deny that the world in the past decade has changed dramatically.

That’s an absurd take. The true difference lies in how things actually work in reality, not in a phrase written on a piece of paper somewhere.

You could replace the constitution of North Korea with that of the United States without a single thing changing in practice.

> if the model has seen that action in the training corpus somewhere, then there's a chance it will do that thing.

And it will also do plenty of things that aren’t in its training data at all, otherwise LLMs could be replaced by a search engine.

Not only is that not weird, it’s Occam’s Razor in action. “We could crush the competition but we are holding back” is a laughable excuse that I’m sure you wouldn’t buy in other contexts.

> Using those threat intelligence feeds is optional, as the blog post indicates. 9.9.9.10 & secondaries have no filtering.

TIL that filtering is on by default on the standard resolver (9.9.9.9). That’s certainly a surprise to me; I would have expected the standard resolver to provide “honest” DNS responses and a secondary to provide filtering, rather than the reverse (which is what I think Cloudflare does).

While I think that the ruling is both morally and legally questionable, I do agree with GP that this weakens your original argument quite a bit.

> Galois had built modern algebra before dying at 20.

No he hadn’t. You are clearly consuming mathematics through a pop culture lens.

Now imagine that PhD “impersonator” has, in the past few months, made more demonstrable progress in mathematics than anyone in history.

I think that would change the conclusion of the argument a little.

Who is this “we” you are talking about? Are you a lawmaker? Because if you aren’t, the group of people who can do what you describe doesn’t include you.

Why is this fix “scheduled” rather than ASAP?

I know nothing about the Belgian Center for Cybersecurity, but the fact that they are running a platform that has been infamous for its security issues for 25 years, and been considered essentially obsolete for 15 years, immediately makes me not take them seriously.

This is like a Health Ministry recommending leech therapy to its employees.

China isn’t even close to where SpaceX was 10 years ago.

They may be catching up, but not anytime soon.

> they thought they were just going to impose their laws globally and that other countries would line up to help them do it?

Why is this surprising? The United States does this all the time, successfully.

Indian citizens living in India, who have never left India and only do business with Indian entities, have to declare compliance with US laws (FATCA) when opening a bank account in India with an Indian bank. This is enforced by the Indian government.

Considering how absurdly far ahead of everyone else SpaceX is, 2T seems low, and is more of a testament to how immature the space market itself is at this time.

If SpaceX was reset to 2016, they would still be ahead of everyone else even today. Their deployed capabilities today are ahead of the plans of most of their competitors.