danaris

24 ms·

451.
by danaris 8mo ago
I mean, it's not really a costume. This is a case where a shrewd industrial policy genuinely goes hand-in-hand with what's best for the environment. Win-win.
452.
by danaris 8mo ago
Your thesis is completely undercut by the rest of your post. Some foods are healthiest to eat with no processing. Other foods require minimal processing to be healthily edible. Still other foods require significant processing to be
453.
by danaris 8mo ago
Or, y'know, maybe the reason is more this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47058280
454.
by danaris 8mo ago
Yes we have to massively raise taxes. We need to claw back billions and billions and billions of dollars from people for whom it will make zero difference in their daily lives, so that we can spend it on people for whom $100 can change
455.
by danaris 8mo ago
This is only true if there continues to be tremendous amounts of money/hardware/power available to perform the training, in perpetuity.
456.
by danaris 8mo ago
We have vast amounts of resources. More than enough to supply the basic needs of everyone in the country. The US is currently choosing to divert absolutely staggering amounts of those resources away from things we have traditionally valued—
457.
by danaris 8mo ago
Have you seen the way some people talk about Musk around here? There are clearly plenty of posters who, to all appearances, genuinely believe that he is the entirety of Tesla's R&D department.
458.
by danaris 8mo ago
“Now, there's this about cynicism, Sergeant. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of shit for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink t
459.
by danaris 8mo ago
So long as they don't give them the capability to consume arbitrary biomass to fuel themselves, I think we're safe from a Faro Swarm situation for the foreseeable future...
460.
by danaris 8mo ago
Poe's Law applies here. Especially on HN, especially with respect to Musk. There are a disturbing number of people here who have fully bought into his lies.
461.
by danaris 8mo ago
There's zero chance that Musk will have suddenly "solved" FSD in a day, a week, or a year. He's not an engineer; he's a money man, and a grifter. That's why people keep giving Tesla money: because Musk has fo
462.
by danaris 8mo ago
> If you improve the hiring process, the size of the hiring panel will be reduced from 20 people to 5, which means there's 75% chance you'll be fired. Wait, what? That only makes sense if the hiring panel is made up exclusivel
463.
by danaris 8mo ago
> There is no world where you get all that for the same percentage of income. This is only true because real income has barely budged since the 1970s. If real income had tracked productivity during that time, we would have plenty. But
464.
by danaris 8mo ago
The real problem comes where you can't afford not to answer, and what's "reasonable," in their minds, is very unclear.
465.
by danaris 8mo ago
Indeed: particularly given that—just as a nonexhaustive "for instance"—one of the fairly common things expected in AGI is that it's sapient . Meaning, essentially, that we have created a new life form, that should be given
466.
by danaris 8mo ago
Yes, but if they weren't overproduced and then either run into the ground or left waiting for demand that would never come, then wouldn't those memory chips and precious metals all still be more available than otherwise...? I me
467.
by danaris 8mo ago
But if the demand drops for six months, the manufacturers are going to scale back production. If it drops for a year, they're likely to start shedding capacity, one way or another. This is not an equivalent situation. The vast, vast
468.
by danaris 8mo ago
You're constructing quite a lot of hypotheticals to justify not waiting 3 more days to condemn Ars Technica for not firing this guy. Can we not just have a little patience anymore?
469.
by danaris 8mo ago
> That's not how it works. Some places. > It's standard op nowadays to lock out terminated employees before they even walk in the door. Some places. You're speaking very authoritatively about what's "stand
470.
by danaris 8mo ago
And the problem with that is, all the money has been siphoned off by the people at the top. That's one of the big hidden factors driving the ad/surveillance economy: people's purchasing power just isn't what it used to b
471.
by danaris 8mo ago
I'm in the same boat, sorry. I don't subscribe, but I do have their RSS feed in my regular reader, and I don't know of any single site that's better.
472.
by danaris 8mo ago
Indeed—and Mira Furlan died just a few years ago, at 65.
473.
by danaris 8mo ago
This kind of statement feels very akin to the variety of Twitter post that's along the lines of "but who among us would be safe from prosecution if our DMs/private phonecalls/conversations with our secretaries were sent
474.
by danaris 8mo ago
Rhetorically , yes. Legally , no. The person driving is considered responsible.
475.
by danaris 8mo ago
I think there's a meaningful difference between a gun manufacturer and an LLM service provider like OpenAI. A better analogy would be some kind of "guns-as-a-service" model, where the company sends down a drone with a gun and
476.
by danaris 8mo ago
But the whole reason it's called "the singularity" is because the "AI" improving itself is supposed to already be smarter than us, and better able to make those improvements. Thus, improvement builds on itself exp
477.
by danaris 8mo ago
And we will see them again in the place where no shadows fall.
478.
by danaris 8mo ago
Yeah, the Condé Nast buyout really crippled what was an amazing independent tech news site. The sad thing is, I don't know of anywhere else that comes close to what Ars was before.
479.
by danaris 8mo ago
And sadly, so many of the main cast are no longer with us—far more than one would expect from their ages. I know that some of them, indeed, died due to substance abuse issues; I don't know the circumstances of all of them. They will al
480.
by danaris 8mo ago
To be honest, I kind of think it's a combination of both #2 and #3. They know they're lying. But they also believe, and they want everyone else to believe, that anyone who disagrees with them is subhuman, inconsequential.

More ›