slibhb

6 ms·

91.
by slibhb 4mo ago
"We shouldn't give Burma the internet because they might commit a genocide" Do you hear yourself? Let's not give them electricity and fossil fuels either. Just keep them in dark age conditions so they don't hurt any
92.
by slibhb 4mo ago
You might as well blame this on Tim Berners-Lee. It's just absurd, a clueless way of thinking about moral responsibility.
93.
by slibhb 4mo ago
The idea that facebook is this "well-documented do-bad-for-the-world organization" that has caused "damage to the world" is a perfect example of scape-goating. When you step back and try to explain exactly what the compa
94.
by slibhb 4mo ago
Had the same reaction to Carmack's wording. I don't agree about the distinction between programming and engineering; to me it's all programming, engineering is just the word we started using to make it sound higher status.
95.
by slibhb 4mo ago
> The people who become billionaires are experts at becoming billionaires, creating value probably has nothing to do with it Give me a break. Elon has created a huge amount of value. Every third car I see on the road is a Telsa and the U
96.
by slibhb 4mo ago
> but nobody speaks this in real life They speak it on tv and it's written in newpapers. They learn it in schools. Educated Arabs code switch into Fusha all the time. Islamist leaders (e.g. Nasrallah) speak Fusha in their broadcast
97.
by slibhb 4mo ago
I didn't write "God only speaks Arabic" in Islam. That's your intepretation of my post. All I meant was that Arabic has special status in Islam. > Weird to say Arabic hasn’t innovated or evolved considering the wild v
98.
by slibhb 4mo ago
Another wrinkle with Arabic is linguistic conservatism. Due to Islamism and the idea that Arabic is the language of of God (the Quran was written in Arabic by the supposedly illiterate prophet), Arabic has lagged behind other languages in t
99.
by slibhb 4mo ago
If you want to talk about whether LLMs are intelligent, you have to define intelligence. "They're just math formulae" isn't a definition of intelligence.
100.
by slibhb 4mo ago
LLMs are intelligent by any reasonable standard. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that chess algorithms aren't good at chess when they easily beat the best humans.
101.
by slibhb 4mo ago
It's not that there's social pressure specifically against reading. Just that there's social pressure to conform, and most people aren't reading.
102.
by slibhb 4mo ago
No, but would you want this? People who contribute more should be paid more, but mapping compensation to contribution exactly isn't easy and comes with downsides.
103.
by slibhb 4mo ago
Where I work, I don't get a sense that we "thrive on kudos via performative actions" but I would say that ~15% of the employees are doing ~80% of the work. This dynamic seems almost inevitable as a company grows. It's no
104.
by slibhb 4mo ago
The cost for a fixed level of intelligence will fall over time. We've already seen this. But the cost of cutting edge models will probably not fall anytime soon, and may increase. So I would expect Fable-level intelligence to get cheap
105.
by slibhb 4mo ago
I think you're ultimately right that my hypothetical device wouldn't solve the hard problem. And that there is a link between throughgoing empiricism and epistemological nihilism. I'd compare to physics today. We're less
106.
by slibhb 4mo ago
You don't need "generational wealth" to leverage AI. If anything the opposite is true; AI empowers people with less to do more. Hiring humans is expensive, tokens are much cheaper. Also, programmers will be least negatively a
107.
by slibhb 4mo ago
No need to overthink. Most people, pretty much everywhere, simply don't like new things.
108.
by slibhb 4mo ago
> It wouldn't solve the hard problem. I still couldn't verify that the recording gives you the exact subjective experience it gives me. Yes, I'm leaning into the unfalsifiability but that's kind of the point of why it
109.
by slibhb 4mo ago
> I actually don't think neuroscience can solve it either. Science could decide whether, e.g. equivalent physical processes are occurring in dogs and humans, and you could argue that solves the question for things with physical brai
110.
by slibhb 4mo ago
There's currently no way to prove that something is or isn't conscious. I would bet that rocks and LLMs aren't conscious. I would bet that humans and dogs are conscious. But I can't prove it. Whenever people try to prove
111.
by slibhb 5mo ago
I'm aware that flying was more enjoyable pre reform. And we could make it that enjoyable today by inflating the prices by 50-100%. The food would be better, the seats would be bigger, and planes would be emptier. But the downside is th
112.
by slibhb 5mo ago
Selfish capitalists want to accumulate capital and grow the economy. Slavery is a bad strategy for achieving these ends. There is ample historical evidence of this, and it also lines up with mainstream economic theory. People who argue othe
113.
by slibhb 5mo ago
> The US economy generally did very well with those standards Spurious correlation. Few experts (economists) think old regulations caused economic growth. If we really want to recreate post-war growth, we should destroy half our infastru
114.
by slibhb 5mo ago
Rose colored glasses. The classic example is airline deregulation which happened under Carter. The real cost of flights is way, way down since then. But this doesn't stop people from complaining about how "flying is a worse experi
115.
by slibhb 5mo ago
The idea that slavery is a free lunch that is only banned on moral grounds is wrong. Slavery is bad economics. If you want your economy to grow, paying workers is not bad. Economic growth isn't zero sum.
116.
by slibhb 5mo ago
I don't find this convincing. It doesn't seem to me that ride share drivers should be paid while idling or repositioning. Nor am I in favor of California forcing a minimum wage on ride share drivers. In general, I don't under
117.
by slibhb 5mo ago
These companies seem great to me. Far better than what preceded them anyway. I'm skeptical that they're "rent-seeking" in any meaningful way, or that unions will meaingfully improve the situation.
118.
by slibhb 5mo ago
Ultimately, it is in the interest of employers to treat their employees well. Well-treated (and well paid) people do more work and are more loyal.
119.
by slibhb 5mo ago
If it was really about paying valued employees more, it would be like 5% or 10%. It's not feasible to pay people 2x-3x every day, so the result is painstakingly scheduling people so they don't meet the criteria for that. Second,
120.
by slibhb 5mo ago
> The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications. No, it's just a scam, and anyone should be able to see that. It&#x2

More ›