tarsinge

If a company needs to fire people to prevent a product from degrading then it’s too late the company culture is rotten to its core.

The argument that sentience can't derive from computation alone because computations can be slowed down and done by hand still hold for me. The piece of paper written on or the silicon doesn't acquire different properties because what the operation will be used for, the GPU doesn't differentiate between graphic rendering and weight computation when it's adding 1. That's in opposition with animal brains that not only do computations but interact with real-world matter/fields directly. With that said of course we don't know if human like sentience is a prerequisite to (super)human level intelligence. But recent advancements in AI tends to diminish the argument sentience is a side effect of intelligence though.

You were talking about the number of parameters on existing models. Like the history of Deep Learning has shown, simply throwing more computing power at an existing approach will plateau and not result in a fundamental breakthrough. Maybe we'll find new architectures, but the point was that the current ones might be showing their limits, and we shouldn't expect the model suddenly become good at something they are currently unable to handle because "more parameters".

You are missing the point that it can be a model limit. LLMs were a breakthrough but that doesn’t mean they are a good model for some other problems, no matter the number of parameters. Language contains more than we thought, as GPT has impressively showed (ie semantics embedded in the syntax emerging from text compression), but still not every intellectual process is language based.

I’m not assuming ill-intent, I’m talking about the idea. Stating something is wrong or illegal seems essential to the discussion. It’s like if someone said “I should rob a bank”, I sure hope saying it’s illegal will be taken into account in their curiosity.

Considering an idea is about taking everything into account. The part where it’s illegal or morally reprehensible is essential to the discussion. Also if not communicated like here it can be understood as an opinion.

I think they underestimated the hate of an internet crowd post crypto and meme stocks, now completely blindsided by the investment angle especially in the current AI hype. Like why do people now care so much about Microsoft seriously? Or Altman? I can see why Ilya only focused on the real mission could miss how the crowd could perceive a threat to their future investment opportunities, or worse threatening the whole AI hype.

> On questions of design, I ask "What would Steve do?" but on questions of strategy or ambition I ask "What would Sama do?"

This is from the eyes of an investor. Does OpenAI really need a shareholder focused CEO more than a product focused one?

Why follow Altman? Most smart people are more driven by the mission than a personality cult.

We still don’t know if the one plotting was Altman. There is still room for this to be seen as a bold and courageous action.

4. The people who think AI will be able to do some things better than humans and that this will be great.

I think the point is there is no technical "better" in arts. Otherwise painting wouldn't have moved past photorealism and in music we wouldn't have got punk, grunge, lo-fi, screamed vocals... Like I can literally go in tear listening to a singer going slightly out of tune due to the emotions of connecting with another human being. The point is transmitting emotions. AI will be better when you need something generic, consensual, in the current zeitgeist, and mass produced and consumed. It will never replace a human performing by definition.

If you want to spend your time being productive/in the zone that’s what you want. Your workflows are in the music or movie production or graphic/3D app, etc… Macs always were about running apps and doing all your work there.

It’s like the difference between having a car for mechanics projects and racing vs actually needing to go from A to B reliably when you need it.

If you have to hire dedicated frontend engineers maybe you have overgrown Rails or it’s not a good fit for your site? I find Rails is awesome when it fits in the model Fullstack engineers with designers, HTML-heavy with JS enhancements on specific views. It’s so simple and efficient when the views nicely match the URL routes and they are mostly HTML, even the designers can work on the codebase.

> There is nothing wrong with being motivated by getting credit.

It's wrong if it's your top priority instead of improving the codebase. And even then not being wrong doesn't mean you are entitled to get it, your motivations are your own.

As a French this looks like the kind of sentence I could write if I was translating word for word to English.

The word for word translation of the discourse is also quite readable in French: "Aucun événement n’aurait pu me rendre plus angoissé que celui dont la notification a été transmise par votre commande, et reçu le 14e jour de ce mois."

> but the lack of empathy on the part of the 'remote work for everyone, always' camp saddens me.

You are making the straw man here. People are mostly asking for a right to work remotely if they want to, that's all. And the status quo until very recently was (and still is) the opposite: not allowing remote work for people who want it, without any empathy for their needs. Try not to read it as an attack on the office, but more as millions of people asking for not being forced to commute and go to the office for a miserable experience.

This is my story too. I remember playing with Basic on an Apple II and how it was a revelation, but then a big void in the 90s up until graphing calculator in high school. I was so frustrated, programming seemed a parallel world I had no idea how to reach but was deeply attracted to. I had fun with HyperCard and ResEdit but I knew I was just scratching the surface. When I finally grabbed a copy of CodeWarrior it was way too complex for me, and console-like C programs too limited. If only something like Unity had existed back then..

Slashing oil production by 50% in western economies is not a reduction in lifestyle it’s a full collapse with a huge number of collateral death.

But still you have a partial point: health/life expectancy and happiness have already started to decorrelate with the economy in the US, and US people consume more resources than other western economies with obviously better material outcome but no better quality of life outcome. This point to solutions were conversely it should then be possible to maintain standard of living with a decrease in the energy consumption. Red meat and leisure only air travel are indeed good candidates because you can live a very happy, healthy and fulfilled life without them. Same with cars weighting 1000 pounds less, putting a sweater in winter at home, having denser city centers with public transportation, etc…

This is not about left or right, this is about having an open look at some ideologies with data. It’s always hard to accept when people make economical theories a part of their identity and values, this a religious crisis for them not a simple discussion.

On iOS I use Sky Guide

You mean like the US in the 50’s? Labeling reducing the pay gap and taxation as socialism is not intellectually honest.

As you with your opinion that it is a beautiful construction in the first place. Difference is the Parent’s opinion was suppressed in modern architecture and yours was imposed.

I visited the US a few years ago and I was shocked how much calories were packed in random foods. Some desserts/cakes alone were above 1000kcal. Basically in the US I had to be very careful and calorie counting and I got the impression if you eat randomly you'll end up with a very high calorie intake (typically above 3000 per day), whereas this is usually less true in Europe (but it's getting less true every year) and you might end up just a bit overweight instead of obese by eating randomly.

What was a typical day for him at Tesla or SpaceX? My understanding is his contribution is getting big government contracts, but the companies were essentially run by others.

The catch is it’s not really progress if it’s not sustainable. It’s like living on debt, it ends up in bankruptcy. Are we really correctly investing the ecological debt for a sustainable better future, or are we just burning through it for short term "progress" and leaving a ruined earth after?

> But it's what we do. Always have. Always will.

You can’t extrapolate from the past because never before in history we had the capacity to have impacts at that scale (e.g. atomic bomb). We are in uncharted territories.

No, stop repeating propaganda. People are free to do what they want in the public space (see edit). Religious symbols are banned in schools and for public employees.

*Edit: with the exception of full face covering in public (different from hijab) which is banned regardless the method.

Markets are just the average sentiment of a mass of greedy people trying to make a buck, there is no inherent prediction power.

Depends which of the two period: first it evolved a lot with custom features non available for competitors (that’s the phase Chrome is in). Then once everything was IE specific code and it achieved domination it stopped evolving. When people say Chrome is the new IE is to mean it’s on the same trajectory (IE early mid 00’s), not that it’s already at the IE6 in 2010 phase.

SCMaglev is a better design and application, no need for low pressure.

TFA is about Goodreads users not bothering reading before leaving a review, not much evidence to use here.

What is there to judge? The original commenter is the one making an appeal to authority, then just saying they are skeptical. In short an anonymous giving their opinion. The parent is right saying it’s of way lower value than the study.