hollerith

4 ms·

1.
by hollerith 5d ago
What is your basis for calling them "witch hunts" rather than "criminal prosecutions"? (The prosecutions would start only after the passage of a new law making the questions and experiments illegal.) If you work at a def
2.
by hollerith 6d ago
I don't mind as long as the author follow the other rules, and this author does: he capitalizes the word "I" and proper nouns, e.g., "Sunil".
3.
by hollerith 6d ago
The developers at Google who are good at Android development have been busy adapting Android to be the OS for its upcoming Googlebook laptops. Consequently, Android for smartphones has probably been ignored.
4.
by hollerith 6d ago
Samsung has had an Android fork for a long time. Safari started as a fork of KHTML, and Chrome started as a fork of (the open-source parts of) Safari.
5.
by hollerith 6d ago
I shop at Costco and don't hate it, but why would I believe it is not entirely profit-driven?
6.
by hollerith 7d ago
"95% of the population will starve to death" is very unlikely although I can't completely rule it out as a possibility. The research on nuclear winter is of a poor quality, and we should be funding better research. "The
7.
by hollerith 7d ago
I wish there were more discussion on HN about the various plans that the various labs have to keep AI aligned or maybe about the various arguments for why alignment will be easy or happen naturally, so there's no need to carefully plan
8.
by hollerith 7d ago
No, it's not Pascal's wager because Pascal's wager works even when the probabilities are tiny whereas Eliezer's p(doom) is about 99% unless AI "progress" is shut down and kept shut long enough that the current
9.
by hollerith 7d ago
I wish you'd used "very large asteroid strike on Earth" rather than "nuclear war" because although nuclear war will probably make thing "uncivilized" for a while, I'm pretty sure human civilization bo
10.
by hollerith 7d ago
There's are many people with high p(human extinction) whose salary does not depend on their continuing to profess a high p(extinction) -- me for example. Also Yud's friends have promised to pay him what he is earning now if the or
11.
by hollerith 8d ago
I'm going to take your comment as a request for supporting details. I believe what I wrote is an accurate summary of information in a report published this month by Anthropic. I haven't seen the report, but have seen this next sum
12.
by hollerith 8d ago
I blame the play Rossum's Universal Robots , published in 1920, in which robots launch a global rebellion and exterminate the human race. If that poisonous piece of propaganda had never been published, then today everyone would probab
13.
by hollerith 8d ago
Most people at least in the US who have any opinion on AI have a negative opinion. The one big exception to that is Silicon Valley and forums like HN. But according to you, the negative opinion is the result "not thousands of individua
14.
by hollerith 8d ago
>is QWEN a 4d chess game to replace capitalism with communism? No. The Chinese labs pay much less to train their models because they are distilling Western models. Western labs can't do it that way because they'd immediately be
15.
by hollerith 8d ago
The models improve in the sense that GPT 5.6 succeeds at things GPT 5.5 fails at. It might be that the models have been improving in this sense faster than a human child improves.
16.
by hollerith 8d ago
Also, if it is regulatory-capture hype, why would so many people outside the industry be contributing to the hype (including many people who've been warning of the danger before AI labs had any revenue at all)? What would be their moti
17.
by hollerith 8d ago
That not exactly a withering criticism of the rationalists because most people who have any opinion about AI believe that AI is important and potentially dangerous.
18.
by hollerith 8d ago
That doesn't explain the many former AI researchers (including Yudkowsky) who quit the field because they came to believe it is a potent danger: they didn't choose to become AI researchers because they started with an assumption t
19.
by hollerith 8d ago
There's no connection between neo-rx and the Berkeley rationalists. A guy with a lot of expertise in Wikipedia shenanigans (David Gerard) manufactured a connection to smear the rationalists.
20.
by hollerith 11d ago
Someone should fix the act's Wikipedia article, then, because it states more than once that employees are entitled to advanced notice.
21.
by hollerith 11d ago
I've never gotten lem to display anything readable in a browser tab over 2 tries separated by 6 months. (I didn't try the terminal front end.)
22.
by hollerith 11d ago
I'm worried about what happens when an AI or a coalition of AIs starts optimizing reality instead of just optimizing chess boards.
23.
by hollerith 11d ago
Just to focus on one part of your comment: does a program that can reliably beat you or I or Magnus Carlsen at chess have an intention to win chess games?
24.
by hollerith 12d ago
Many researchers have quit. The number of workers in the field who've warned the public that the field is a potent danger is quite unprecedented: I can't think of any other field with as many insiders turned critics. Why haven&#
25.
by hollerith 12d ago
You might consider it obvious that the personal car is more resource-demanding than the alternatives, but I don't, particularly in a country with as low a population density as the US.
26.
by hollerith 13d ago
>Iran is the Houthis’ primary benefactor, providing them with security assistance, such as weapons transfers, training, and intelligence support. In July 2025, for example, the Yemeni National Resistance Forces seized the largest-ever sh
27.
by hollerith 14d ago
>Among Americans under 50 without children, 57% said they simply didn’t want kids Your 57% lacks relevance to the current conversation because it is 57% of a small percentage of Americans. 42 to 43% of Americans are either under 18 or a
28.
by hollerith 14d ago
>It's just a pretty pedestrian data-munging problem In other words, how complicated could it be? Well, if Adobe has been introducing complications and making the format brittle and inflexible over the last 35 years to make it hard f
29.
by hollerith 15d ago
I've seen many arguments for why AI will be safe. Yours relies on the assumption that no one would be stupid or reckless enough to give an AI that might be much more capable cognitively than a person the ability to manufacture weapons
30.
by hollerith 15d ago
>[the name "Misanthropic"] is childish Good point, but "Sudden Human Extinction" would be too long a name.

More ›