scarmig

6 ms·

61.
by scarmig 3mo ago
If a driver doesn't get into a crash after a single mile, you can't conclude that they are safer than the average driver. If a driver does get involved in a crash after a single mile, it's very likely that they are not safer
62.
by scarmig 3mo ago
In fairness to the authors, legal fault is not sufficient to encompass how different vehicle types change accident risk. E.g., if someone breaks abruptly for no reason and that results in rear ending, the breaker wouldn't be "at f
63.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Concretely, they are basing this analysis on 3 Waymos being involved in incidents involving a serious injury or fatality nationwide, versus 16 for NYC for hire ones (presumably in NYC or its immediate environs). The three incidents they&#x2
64.
by scarmig 3mo ago
The idea that a calculator, or a calculator with Python, or even a calculator with a proof assistant (and every book ever written on math) would help a random person at e.g. IMO or Putnam is fairly revealing.
65.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Some quotes from a day ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48957779 : > I hold my stance that LLMs are stochastic parrots... Making the parrots ever more complex and training > Except solving problem is probably
66.
by scarmig 3mo ago
"Any idiot could have done this, it's just high school calculus and just a counterexample anyway. Stochastic parrot, spicy autocomplete, AI psychosis. Wake me up when an AI does something real."
67.
by scarmig 3mo ago
It's a kind of free insurance: if a bad financial event happens, you're protected against the worst downsides. If you're from a poor family and break out of poverty, you're still in a worse financial state than someone f
68.
by scarmig 3mo ago
LLMs have basic reasoning and a whole lot of memorization. Through that basic reasoning and pruned search, combined with piles of compute, you can prove lots of things. But the memorization of human failure prunes that possibility, and you
69.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Two years from now, when a proof of the Collatz conjecture is announced and verified: "No one cares about that! What practical applications does it have? It's pretty trivial anyways. More hype from the AI psychosis crowd."
70.
by scarmig 3mo ago
You can solve it with two heaps, which don't need to maintain a complete order. Or selection algorithms, as in the sibling comment (asymptotically better).
71.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Everything we do has side effects. Some have more than others; in the case of water, even heavy users of AI have a relatively small AI water footprint compared other things they do. There are ideological perspectives--another comment in thi
72.
by scarmig 3mo ago
The hysteria around water usage rests on people not knowing the scale of industrial civilization. First thing to do is compare any estimate of data center water usage with the water usage of almond farming. Or, if you want to focus on indiv
73.
by scarmig 3mo ago
There's no statement one way or another about should in my comment; and, for what it's worth, my ideal would be an immediate global pause in AI research and development. But the different terms imply different mental models of wha
74.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Which frame inspires a more productive research program? Which has better predicted the trajectory of capabilities over the past five years?
75.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Back then, it sounded like making right-handed life was decades away. But with this work, couldn't you just as easily make this kind of synthetic cell right-handed?
76.
by scarmig 3mo ago
It's right up there with all the propaganda to convince the public that vaccines are good, or that drinking paint thinner is bad for you.
77.
by scarmig 3mo ago
It has to do with the scope of what they're discussing. It seems extraordinarily small: e.g. what if AI increases productivity growth by 0.4%? Do data centers use too much water? Are AIs racist when reviewing resumes? The frontier labs
78.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Google has a compelling story for many AI scenarios: it has lots of outs. It's the only frontier lab for which that's true. A massive bubble bursting wouldn't be existential for Google; it would be quite painful, but surviva
79.
by scarmig 3mo ago
Just own the wrinkles. Linen isn't meant to look perfectly structured.
80.
by scarmig 4mo ago
The latter question is 100% reasonable, and something I also fall on. But there's definitely a large contingent who denies that they think there's any risk at all, instead of them engaging in motivated reasoning to think their sel
81.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Useful info, explains a lot. Thanks.
82.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Do people in Germany see limited liability as some kind of crazy thing only a scammer would want?
83.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Anti-AI psychosis. Anyone treating AI as a serious topic beyond "it's spicy auto complete/obvious scam/stochastic parrots" is some mixture of evil and stupid and can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of their arg
84.
by scarmig 4mo ago
The point here is not the correctness of their beliefs. It's about what the actual content of their beliefs is. If someone says that Donald Trump is a secret Shia supremacist and using that to explain his actions, pointing out that tha
85.
by scarmig 4mo ago
> This would be a great point if I had introduced either the NFT/crypto comparison OR the "existential threat" parameters, but if you read through the thread, you introduced both. To quote you, ten minutes before: > tha
86.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Sure; they might be caught in their own hype cycle. I am pointing out that the repeated claims in this thread (and by Geohot, ironically enough) that they are NFT crypto bros running a scam is incorrect.
87.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Their usual stance is something along the lines of their company is creating AI correctly--not that AI will inherently destroy humanity--and that them working there helps that end. It's extremely reasonable to question their approach
88.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Technically, it's the time discounted rate of future profits that determine valuations. If you take it as a given that they will provide exactly as much value as they do today, then, yes, your question has the obvious answer of no. If
89.
by scarmig 4mo ago
No; I'm only stating that your model of reality is off, and I'm correcting it. No, the folks at the frontier labs do not believe they are trying to scam people with an NFT-tier fraud, and their warnings are not an attempt at marke
90.
by scarmig 4mo ago
Regardless of whether you believe in doom or not, it's this kind of wild, willful misunderstanding that makes people roll their eyes and dismiss you. Yes, people at Anthropic (and OpenAI, for that matter!) really, genuinely do believe

More ›