revelio

19 ms·

121.
by revelio 3y ago
Censorship isn't "not listening", it's stopping other people from listening.
122.
by revelio 3y ago
Why would services take longer to build? You mean, compared to going all in on every aws service?
123.
by revelio 3y ago
There's plenty of high quality writing out there that people pay for. That's Substack's business model.
124.
by revelio 3y ago
They weren't allowed out of their cabins iirc, so public bathrooms and elevators were not really relevant. It was almost certainly spreading through the ventilation system and possibly drainage systems.
125.
by revelio 3y ago
Why is that amazing? Masking is a social phenomenon at this point. It's about showing other people what sort of person you are, not about the mask itself.
126.
by revelio 3y ago
It was clear by March 2020 when the passengers on the Diamond Princess were all locked down in their cabins and COVID didn't care at all, managing to infect people all over the ship essentially at random. This is only possible if it i
127.
by revelio 3y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 "Why the WHO took two years to say COVID is airborne Early in the pandemic, the World Health Organization stated that SARS-CoV-2 was not transmitted through the
128.
by revelio 3y ago
> What happened next is a lesson about leaving disaster response to the whims of capitalism. Companies did exactly what the government wanted them to do: make hand sanitizer as fast as possible and at massive scale. The lesson here is
129.
by revelio 3y ago
Whilst there's no need to reply, here is some information on the rewriting of history they engage in, as requested. Here are two graphs from the same government agency (NASA), measuring the same thing (temperature), for the same time p
130.
by revelio 3y ago
Replying here, crossing over from the other thread. Where we depart is point 4. Actually, both point 3 and 4 are things I agree with, but it's implied there's a logical link or progression between them and I don't think there
131.
by revelio 3y ago
I agree these statements from these long term researchers about them being surprised by the rate of progress are surprising. To clarify my own thinking here, it's totally reasonable to me that people are surprised if: 1. They weren&#x2
132.
by revelio 3y ago
There's a ton of stuff here and this isn't a climate thread, but briefly: 1. Yes I believe independents are more reliable than full time researchers because the latter are deeply conflicted and independents aren't. 2. They do
133.
by revelio 3y ago
Not in Java you can't.
134.
by revelio 3y ago
But if you convert that Java to Kotlin it'll get vastly shorter, whilst still being semantically the same. OOP doesn't have to mean verbosity. Java chose that path to keep the language simple, like how Go is also very verbose but
135.
by revelio 3y ago
AGI will be a computer program, unless you're imagining some entirely non-computer based form of artificial intelligence. And it will therefore obey the rules of normal computer programs, like vulnerability to SIGKILL. Yes, you can a
136.
by revelio 3y ago
I didn't see your other post I think, but here's my response to the list of AI risks on the website we're discussing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36123082#36129011 Arguments like yours are very subje
137.
by revelio 3y ago
I thought someone might say that. This thread is really a perfect demonstration of my point. Our society is so in thrall to self-proclaimed intellectuals that you can literally make a movie presenting falsifiable claims with 100% confidence
138.
by revelio 3y ago
No I'm not arguing that. My point is that if an AI is trying to take over the world we can just turn it off, regardless of power budgets. If it runs on millions of hacked devices, how do you turn it off? The same way any botnet gets tu
139.
by revelio 3y ago
The reason these two ideas get commingled is because in practice they're indivisible. A high redistribution society requires high degrees of coercion and fascism. To get around this the usual Star Trek analysis (by fans, the series its
140.
by revelio 3y ago
No, lots of important AI researchers are missing and many of the signatories have no relevant AI research experience. As for being the cats whiskers in developing neural architecture or whatever, so what? It gives them no particular insight
141.
by revelio 3y ago
It doesn't answer that, it can't because the replicator is fictional. McFarland just says he wrote an episode in which his answer is that replicators need communism, and then claims that you can't have a replicator in a capit
142.
by revelio 3y ago
Some of the academics who signed are either not doing AI research e.g climatologists, genomics, philosophy. Or they have Google connections that aren't disclosed. E.g. Peter Norvig is listed as Stanford University but ran Google Resea
143.
by revelio 3y ago
Sure. Despite all that progress, computers still have an off switch and power efficiency still matters. It actually matters more now than in the past.
144.
by revelio 3y ago
It may seem overnight if you weren't following it, but I've followed AI progress for a long time now. I was reading the Facebook bAbI test paper in 2015: https://research.facebook.com/downloads/babi/ The
145.
by revelio 3y ago
Ralph Nader: "Everything will be solar in 30 years" (1978) Al Gore: "Within a decade, there will be no more snows on Kilimanjaro due to warming temperatures" (An Inconvenient Truth, 2006). Everything is not solar. Sn
146.
by revelio 3y ago
That's not an obvious path at all: - Such exploits happen already and don't lead to extinction or really much more than annoyance for IT staff. - Most of the computers attached to the internet can't run even basic LLMs, let a
147.
by revelio 3y ago
The letter doesn't talk about economics though. It's specifically about extinction risk. Why did you sign it, if that isn't your concern?
148.
by revelio 3y ago
Yes it would? Why do you think it wouldn't?
149.
by revelio 3y ago
AI also has a power budget. It has to fit in a datacenter. Inconveniently for AI, that power budget is controlled by us.
150.
by revelio 3y ago
> Mostly if the "obviousness" just masks a social taboo, which I don't see being the case here. Do you? The social taboo here is saying that a position taken by lots of highly educated people is nonsense because they&#x2

More ›