scandox

Eventually of course this must be true, but eventually is a very long time and thus not susceptible of reasonable analysis.

I think a realist would likely imagine a long period of suffering and confusion rather than extinction (which is actually a sort of psychic panacea).

The article isn't about AI. It's about investment. And that quote I think tells us something about the man. Who is likely the same man he was in 2021

> In an interview with CNBC in 2021, Trainer acknowledged that “crazy stuff happens” and New Constructs doesn’t always get it right.

> “I can’t let that bother me,” he said at the time. “I have to stay true to what I think is right.”

Monkey remains true to darts, dartboard.

Lots of debate about luck vs achievement here. Just wanted to point out: they definitely did succeed in not being slaughtered and replaced. So in that sense they owned their success.

I can't say if the choice is right or wrong really, these are not easy choices. I use Arch Linux and generally install custom things from source, but I'm not necessarily your ideal market!

I gave 2 minutes to trying to find a linux download and didn't succeed. Not feeling too smart!

One word on rings: degloving

But why write these comments with AI?

It's a correction. What the model does is not real contradiction. So more nuance is welcome in this case - even if at another layer it's tongue in cheek

> getting the AI to “try to do the right thing” by human standards.

Are these scientists really this hideously naive? If only Stanislaw Lem was alive to adequately dramatize the absurd, childish simplicity of these technicians.

It's no Sopwith

Yeah I remember we had a family friend and they had a Boost button in their Saab. I don't know if it literally said Boost but in my memory it does. We begged him to press it but he told us it was extremely dangerous and would cause flames to shoot out the back. So of course we begged him even more...

My internal metaphor for senior management is of a man sitting in a darkened room receiving slips of paper under the door with little messages on them.

That's why founder types have such a massive advantage. They've got a much better mental picture of what's beyond the door.

All art requires growth and change. Artists can't go on doing the same things forever. Will they take a turn into some dead end...sure. Maybe even for centuries. But remaining static is certain death.

If you're absolving the other person from any understanding of the issue and the alternative is "stuff broken" then yes what you say makes sense. But that's an incredibly low bar and one would have to say - that's not a colleague, that's an end user type relationship.

> I'm sincerely sorry for publishing something that has allowed you to feel this way.

What fresh hell is this? If this is human then I wish it was AI

The thing about the two women crawling on the road at night is the stuff of nightmares. I once saw two women - a mother and daughter - drunkenly rolling on the road at a major junction late at night. There was no way on earth a driver coming the other way would have seen them. I had to get out of my vehicle, run across and pull them out of the road. You can imagine their delight and gratitude /s. It was truly scary.

What's interesting to me is that the examples he gives are beautiful because of their sincerity. Even if there is artifice, or they're being formal or playful, their style reflects their reading, their shared culture and of course as you say their audience - which I think for them was a very small elite.

Anyone who writes in a flamboyant style now - as the essay's author does - necessarily comes across as a kind of pastiche. There is something camp or affected about it. Maybe that can change. Maybe a new flamboyance can develop. But I think his antiquated style of flamboyance is unlikely to come back to real life.

There's no type for People which I would have thought has provided some of the all time high scoring submissions.

Well I agree but clearly some people have ambiguous motives...they want to do what gives them joy but also a little bit in their heart they want to impress

Lesson is actually: if you want to blow people's minds then practice secretly. An appearance of effortlessness. Sprezzatura. Whatever it is, it seems to be the only thing that impresses the average person.

OpenAI deployed a tool to perform a task. They failed to control it and it did something unintended but negative.

It is a mistake to view this as anything but human incompetence. They're just being given a pass because the technology is new.

But you do have to keep an eye on those things. It can make the adjustments but you can't take your eye off them.

> "We can’t build a machine to do something when we don’t know how it works."

Really not sure this is true is it?

Nonetheless it did do it. Right in front of my eyes

Well that's a strange way of expressing competitiveness when Hetzner is still vastly cheaper than those 3 cloud providers, despite those cost increases.

About 2023 I think

Enormous, unrelenting social pressure? A crying child telling you that they're completely cut off from their peers and social group? Day after day of arguments and pleading? Schools and scout groups and extra-curriculars that tacitly require your child to have a Facebook or WhatsApp account? And much much more!

O'Brien turning off the Telescreen.

"You can..."

"Yes...we are allowed that privilege"

Because, in practice, it turns telling people what they want to hear into a first-class virtue.

>> "We told him about how our land had been stolen and our people were dying. When we finished he shook our hands and said, 'Endeavor to persevere!' ... We thought about it for a long time, 'Endeavor to persevere.' And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union."