bigbadfeline

4 ms·

31.
by bigbadfeline 17d ago
> I really think its just unknowable how a world after superintelligence will look. I'd argue that there would be more unknowables without AGI than with it, should be obvious, right? Open superintelligence is more likely to help tha
32.
by bigbadfeline 21d ago
> Ad-hominems in an Economist article. As expected - that source rarely publishes anything else. Here's another pearl [1], where they're rejoicing over the kettle's burned color. In both cases The Economist is totally blin
33.
by bigbadfeline 21d ago
> a bunch of broken links in a few years Who cares, by that time the originals and their copies would be a lot less worthy of viewing.
34.
by bigbadfeline 23d ago
> I thought it was pretty well understood amongst experts that trying to interpret so-called "chain of thought" is anthopomorphization Ah, experts... Chatting with a bot is no less "anthopomorphization" that chain of
35.
by bigbadfeline 25d ago
> If demand is projected continue for a long time, this may encourage more competitors to enter this space, so supply will increase. There are no competitors that can muster the capital to make decent RAM... other than China but China is
36.
by bigbadfeline 28d ago
> Spoken like a true Chinese bot The comment you blame provided factual information about a glaring conflict of interest, yours is a substance-free ad hominem. Are there Chinese bots on X? Probably... dwarfed by Grok and other domestic A
37.
by bigbadfeline 28d ago
> But AI isn't a bad guy. But it can be, as every other tool. Actually, it can be worse (or better) than any other tool. In other words, "AI is this or that" is a meaningless statement, it can be many different things, eve
38.
by bigbadfeline 29d ago
> They want computers in racks now and (rightfully imo) look at yearslong approval processes with disgust. Disgust of the rules for me but not for thee? The rest of us have to follow the rules, but not them. How about disgust for actual
39.
by bigbadfeline 29d ago
> Silicon Valley is clearly responding to massive demand for AI services > to provide services that people and companies want so badly Not at all. In economics, demand has little to do with "wants", it means paying the pric
40.
by bigbadfeline 29d ago
Good catch, the self-contradictions in the excusatory narrative are becoming hard to ignore.
41.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
p2p?
42.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Corporations are only people when it comes to rights and profits. When it comes to responsibilities they revert to being nebulous entities whose behaviors are emergent phenomena that no one can actually be held accountable for. You do
43.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Doubtful. These tools will be more useful in capable hands than in the hands of a drooling idiot. "drooling idiot" is just a figure of speech, I'm sure. The point is, the moat is now more like a narrow puddle which few w
44.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
>> OTOH, fighting bigotry is something we should never leave behind. > [we] just want to exist without being attacked for being themselves and [they say we're] wolves who need to be shot to protect the sheep. Weird, you'
45.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
And to add to the above: by building their own supply chain for chips, China is helping the unprivileged, those who can't front-run the market with long-term contracts. If China wasn't producing their own chips, the prices for us
46.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
The export controls were not revoked, only reduced, and not before, but after China refused to buy low performing chips. Top gear was and is still sanctioned, as is any EUVL equipment.
47.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
whackamole is the only way for now, unfortunately.
48.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> There's one thing keeping us afloat right now, and people want to get rid of it. This is an inversion of reality. The overbuilding of data centers isn't keeping us afloat, it's the hole on the bottom of the capital ship,
49.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Goldman partner warns of 'huge danger' in letting AI replace bankers' skills. AI is a huge danger for me but not for thee? Who'd have guessed? I don't think any group should be getting special protections from
50.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> It's completely realistic to imagine a world where robots just do what they're told Yeah, although there are some wrinkles, doing anything else would be clinically insane.
51.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Eh, you see too many of these guys complaining about declining populations for this to be a thing. Overpopulation is the best way to get to low population - eventually. > if you had everything - wouldn't you put everything you
52.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> I've literally never heard anyone conflate an agent and a model. Ever. That's because you know enough to disambiguate on the fly, which isn't true for the majority of the population. In other words, you make assumptions
53.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Corporate world is tribal, if not feudal. And, more importantly, the corporate world is a dependent variable.
54.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them. It's not quite clear how "they" and "them" are related but I see only two options: 1. Bad managers believe what's convenient for them i
55.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
Good. If I'm not mistaken, there are other licenses with similar goals. I'd like to see a comparison.
56.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> we probably shouldn't have abandonned convertibility to gold I just wrote about the abundance of wrong economic paradigms and how easy it is to invent fresh new ones, each worse than the previous... and you put me to shame. I tota
57.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> The only thing that could justify it would be universal acknowledgment that the entire paradigm was wrong. "Acknowledgment" changes absolutely nothing, wrong paradigms are a dime a dozen, you'll get a fresh new one to
58.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> If the general claim were so important, why then focus on the specific case? To make his poorly supported claims look more believable, I've explained that in detail already. > the whole "invisible hand" thing was not
59.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> I'd certainly agree with Smith about trade deficits, So you agree that "Nothing, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade "? Further, let's look at these two claims in your quote of Smi
60.
by bigbadfeline 1mo ago
> Sadly, economics is not yet a science, Nor is there any visible attempt to make it a science. > Millions of people know Adam Smith only by his "invisible hand" analogy, which appears only once in the entire book and in a c

More ›