thfuran

Sometimes it's pretty quick.

And all foreign agents should be allowed to freely operate everywhere simply because Putin has falsely accused at least one person of being a foreign agent? Espionage sure is easy these days.

I think you need look no further than the fact that they removed “don’t be evil” from the top of their code of conduct for evidence that their PR isn’t great. It was an essentially meaningless move and the headlines wrote themselves.

The switches with defaults are both switching over a String with only literal cases. That can't be exhaustive without a default, and switch expressions must be exhaustive.

You're saying that murderers shouldn't be blamed for murdering?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That the “solution” to that is just to ignore both votes in the case of multiple votes per id?

Or the vote buying

I don't understand how you could arrive at this perspective. If you're doing business with ExampleCorp and one of their subcontractors malfeasantly mishandles things, would you say that ExampleCorp had nothing to do with it? If not, why does that change when the interaction happens via example.com?

Okay, but verifying a type system and language specification for soundness wouldn't actually give you any of the guarantees you want if the compiler toolchain isn't verified to implement them correctly. And this sort of thing just isn't standard practice in the industry and never has been. Sure it would be nice if more things were verified, and we are somewhat headed in that direction, but it seems weird to say that rust specifically is just a bunch of half-baked yoloing because it doesn't do something that essentially no other language is doing either.

Memory safety was always a major selling point for java.

Relatively uncommon as in there is not, as far as I know, a single mainstream language with a formally verified spec.

No mainstream compiler is formally proven. If you want a verified compiler, you pretty much have to choose between using a subset of standardml or a subset of C and the one proven compiler for each.

Maybe they should stop trying to do illegal things.

That is not how it is generally being used.

No, it doesn’t. You can be in favor of something and opposed to a particular way of handling or implementing the thing. And the issue here isn’t what it’s being used for but who is able to use it.

The hardware also is, so there ought to be a whole lot more room for improvement.

What exactly would they be killing off and how?

>Anthropics whole stance of being completely against open anything is actually extremely dangerous due to the centralization of power which they completely ignore as a risk factor

I really don’t see how that could be an oversight. It’s the goal.

>With consumer units, you can reasonably expect that they’ll operate with zero maintenance and zero direct supervision for a decade plus

I highly doubt it. You can reasonably expect one hard drive to operate just fine for years, but data centers have to constantly replace failed drives, and that would still be true if they they put each one in a different building. It would just cost a lot more to do.

Tort law is a whole field. There is no universal answer other than that it depends on the jurisdiction and the particulars of the case. But the point is that there doesn't really seem to be anything particularly novel about AI tools that should cause them to be treated legally differently from established norms.

>it's on niche topics where a Reddit post may be the easiest place to find any relevant content.

But isn't the whole point (I mean, aside from making infinite money or world domination or whatever) of the AI that it'll do the hard work of finding the information? Like, that's the whole value proposition of the AI summary in the search results, right?

>In the case of Musk and Altman, not completely clear to me.

They probably just want to ensure that the first AGI is a nazi.

But as more and more things depend on increasingly deep software stacks, everything goes to utter shit if the individual systems don't become more reliable.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Also true, though it seems like Peak Desktop is behind us.

In the mid 80s, something like 10% of US households had any computer at all. That the onramp is in the box doesn't really matter to the people who never saw the box.

>most personal computing devices don't boot into a programming environment

Yes, but now everyone and their mum has a personal computing device, and there's tutorials readily accessible, and five seconds of googling can bring you to an online programming environment.

Your priors are all out of whack. Most people never learned BASIC, let alone at 8. Programming is much more accessible now than then, but the overwhelming majority of people still don’t know any JavaScript or python or anything else.

That sounds like more like "sticking with the first idea no matter what" than like reasoning from first principles.

I'm personally more a fan of figure 11.