Nevermark

5 ms·

31.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
The big delta-v is getting from an Earth launch pad to orbit. Everything after that is much cheaper. A fully fueled ship in Earth orbit can go to Mars, land, and return. Same with most other round trips. Not to mention, fuel can be generate
32.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> "Exhausting" So it isn't just me (disclaimer, contains wording lifted from others): "COMMUNICATION We have a problem. For some reason, the Anthropic engines powering you have picked up some awful communication habit
33.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
I think in this case, the existence of pedigree isn't a strong enough argument to keep around an uncommon, and uncommonly unintuitive, phrase. "Gaslight confession" or "gaslight apology" are much clearer. By directl
34.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
A human wrote this. The gratuitous critique, devoid of any substantive relevance, gives them away.
35.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
These words can definitely help in isolation. But I have noticed that when discussing anything complicated, the sum is far more ambiguous than the parts: "fold", "honest", "answers", "pins", "fra
36.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> [...] a “limited hangout”. >> The words are non-intuitive Yeah. "Incomplete mea culpa", "Incomplete admission", "Incomplete penance", "Incomplete contrition", "Incomplete remorse"
37.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
More likely just ecosystem consistency. Selling wired headphones to wireless-iPhone users for wired-MacBooks could (arguably, maybe) create Apple sponsored interoperability dissonance. MacBook charging mats and wireless Thunderbolt coming i
38.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
Ah, I get it. Your emphasis is on the "cope" framing. You say that, but it didn't click for some reason. Don't mind me. I suppose I have also interpreted downplaying of AI's impact as largely coping too. The arrival
39.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> it’s starting from an obvious base of “people who disagree are all wrong and their arguments aren’t worth taking seriously”. Taking arguments seriously doesn't necessitate agreement.
40.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> The fundamental flaw of the constitution is that it had no ethics built in Yes, that would have been a really good intent to make explicit, to guide the courts. I think of that when the Supreme Court or a state court rules process is m
41.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
Said with no rational given. The solar system readily provides both the motivation, and the means, for technological colonization. It quickly pays and provides for its own utilization. I do agree Musk's projections for biological/
42.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
The industrial revolution was a mini-quake compared to automated cognition. But we can learn some things from it. I see the industrial revolution as the invention of the cart. It made horses more productive. Then the car replaced horses. It
43.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
I agree completely. I don't describe utopia, but change, and stoic (but real) appreciation for the big picture beyond myself. But AI in an unethical society is suicide for humanity. As you note, it does not look good. The trend is powe
44.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
Those "demons" didn't eat our lunch? (I know that can be interpreted as flippant, but it is intended as a serious answer. Because each impact like this, is not an end to some transition, but just one more point on an accelera
45.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
You are pushing me hard! :) > And if you had two separate copies of the universe, you could measure this compounding. > But even if it did ruin cyclic behavior, how long are your cycles? The universe is only 1e61 planck times old. A d
46.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> Pointing at entire fields is not helpful. Can you give me one specific measurement and an estimate of how far off it would be? You are dismissing my point, then asking me to make it. You can think of tests/measurements of values a
47.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> What's an experiment we could do that verifies pi doesn't have an offset of 1e-1000? Quantum mechanics, the wave equation. Electron shells, photochemistry, general chemistry, just about everything if we are talking about pi,
48.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
A great application for sure. It prompted me to wonder why environments haven't evolved into fully realistic room makeovers yet. As the writer notes, the hardware is ready for more uses. The Vision Pro is great hardware, waiting for a
49.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> If your measurement of energy is 150 +/- 2, you only need a handful of digits to do calculations involving that value that preserve it just fine. Insisting that that billionth digit and more still match is no longer working with t
50.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
Pi, i and e show up with apparent perfect "precision" in all kinds of physics. Waves are pervasive and described by relationships involving those numbers. They show up in other relationships. With important properties such as cons
51.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
None of which addresses what happen when self-engineered cognitive forms adapt millions of times faster, than biologically evolving cognition. I would be happy if you tried again and did have a point that was relevant to the practical impac
52.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
Anti-replace. They are going to breed us. Speciation. Not extinction.
53.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
In this case, the term "uncomputable" also means "undefinable with less than infinite symbols". As in, not even computable in theory. It is isn't about normal "computable" concerns. It is "proven to n
54.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
I agree but with a slightly different definition. There are no numbers in the real world, that require and infinitely long definition. 1/3 has infinitely many digits in decimal, but has a finite definition. So its good. I would write d
55.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
It is too bad we don't have a pithy familiar term for the computable / definable / "nameable" / constructible reals. The most general class of undisputed numbers, consistent with the forms we actually use to re
56.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
I felt like the grudging "if we must" nature of his acceptance of open weights came through honestly. :) It is clear he isn't a champion for them.
57.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
Are you replying to the article or me? I have not stated any position. The quote is Anthropic's and was relevant to the comment it followed. My views: I find testing of SOTA models problematic. I find not testing of SOTA models problem
58.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good: they don’t cost anything besides the compute needed to run them, and they provide value to businesses, developers, and researchers. No "love" of op
59.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> apply such testing to the most capable models regardless of their country of origin or whether they are open or closed ... > ... (while exempting less capable models, such as those from startups and academia, entirely) The devil is
60.
by Nevermark 2mo ago
> To summarize my and Anthropic’s position, we have not and are not advocating for a ban on open-weights models as a category. We should instead focus on keeping powerful chips out of authoritarian hands, stopping industrial-scale distil

More ›