sumeno

Why does OpenAI's TOS matter but everyone else's doesn't?

There's a difference between insulting the richest man to ever live and another poster on a message board

Same on Chrome desktop. I wonder if it's intentional to filter out HN traffic

The pizzerias are all on doordash now

Both provide similar grocery delivery services? Not sure where you're confused

What's it like waking up after being asleep for 6 years?

5 years ago it was the crypto bros quoting this

Current technology is sufficient to greatly reduce climate change, there just isn't the political will to do it.

Obviously not every disease can be cured, but even diseases that were essentially gone are coming back because people have just decided they don't care anymore. There are measles outbreaks happening all over the place right now.

mRNA vaccines are a medical marvel and a significant portion of the population has been convinced that horse paste is a better solution.

There are enough resources available that poverty and starvation could be essentially eliminated or at the very least drastically reduced. We just don't do it because people would rather hoard wealth instead.

The technology is here, but too many people profit from not solving the problems

We could do all of those things with today's technology. They aren't technological problems, they are human problems

For how long? If OpenAI or Google (or Chinese companies) decide to keep losing money longer than them they'll pass them pretty soon.

The AI race is going to be won by whoever has enough money to burn to outlast competitors and I'm increasingly skeptical that's going to be Anthropic

Losing the jobs that we are required to have to eat and have shelter before there is a safety net is the problem. If we cede our jobs to AI they aren't going to be replaced with a life of leisure, they're going to be replaced with a life of poverty. If the safety net was put in place first we might have a very different conversation about it, but that's not the world we live in.

That would involve turning a carefully controlled magic trick into a production vehicle that can do the same trick anywhere

They will never sell a car with similar functionality to that demo to anyone

Where are the independently verified statistics for FSD being safer?

I've never crashed driving drunk so drunk driving is safer than driving sober

It is because he is very desperate for nerds to think he is cool so he lies and does PR stunts to that end and it works

The audience for this must get really scared when the magician cuts the lady in half

Yeah, we could tell from your original comment

> Likewise, Apple does not give Withings access to Apple Health's data, even with user permission

Yes it does. It's controlled in Apple Health under Sharing

Because they know that quantity is a substitute for quality. If you write enough words about something, no matter how nonsensical your actual arguments are, people tend to assume you know what you are talking about. If someone points out a flaw in one of your arguments you just say "well you aren't addressing all my other arguments"

It's gish gallop

Are you referring to your own post? If so, accurate

I'm not crazy about any company being the sole deciders of who is a good actor and who is a bad actor.

> It gets hard to ignore the annoyance when the volume degrades the signal.

LLMs in a nutshell

I am a native English speaker and interpreted it the opposite way. "Pacing" a race doesn't mean slowing it down, it means setting the pace, the person in the lead sets the pace of the race.

So my natural understanding of "pacing the frontier" is that they believe they are in the lead and are setting the pace of AI development. It does not imply they are slowing things down at all, it implies they intend to stay in the lead.

Not my experience at all on non-technical online spaces. For example, people try posting AI garbage on sports message boards and everyone dunks on them for posting slop.

These spaces are filled with people barely technically literate enough to post and AI is still viewed very negatively

Didn’t realize Jefferson misquoted Franklin

They are, just not with you I'm guessing

I assure you that in 1999 "cyber" meant something very different

“alleged” in the headline makes it pretty clear that it’s what they are being accused of

I should have specified the space part of SpaceX, of course the AI part has the same risk.

I could easily find 5 people who hate SpaceX and yet that wasn’t mentioned as a risk

I think you’re going to have to provide evidence that this is a commonly documented risk