staunton

50 ms·

781.
by staunton 4y ago
> the open source community is so rarely successful in anything it tries to do for itself. Strongly disagree. Given how hard decentralized collaboration seems to be in general, I'm amazed at what has been achieved. Imagine the inter
782.
by staunton 4y ago
The first fundamental step in any physics model (or theory) is to separate the easily describable "laws" from the almost impossible to describe "state". The perhaps surprising question is why anything at all can be separ
783.
by staunton 4y ago
The three-body problem is solved nowadays (the existence and structure of possible solutions is known). It can also be simulated very precisely using numerics. There is no need for perturbation theory.
784.
by staunton 4y ago
> There are already LLMs hosted across the internet (Folding@Home style) Interesting, I haven't heard of that. Can you name examples?
785.
by staunton 4y ago
Significantly higher latency than you have within a single datacenter. Think "my GPU working with your GPU".
786.
by staunton 4y ago
Every business is fine with some frequency of bullshit output at some level. The question is how often exactly it happens and how much harm the bullshit can cause.
787.
by staunton 4y ago
How is summarization "safe"? The summary might be wrong just as well. The use-case is anything where occasional bullshit output is an acceptable downside to speeding up. More reliable outputs will enable more use-cases.
788.
by staunton 4y ago
It's easy to distribute across many computers which communicate with high latency
789.
by staunton 4y ago
AI is being used in medicine already. For example, in diagnostics. Most new diagnostics devices (e.g. CT scan, cardiograms) include AI systems that suggest an interpretation and point towards possible problems that a doctor might occasional
790.
by staunton 4y ago
If you know Python, you can learn Julia in a day.
791.
by staunton 4y ago
You mean "stopped deploying technology in order to saving jobs" instead of "worried about it"
792.
by staunton 4y ago
> they don't have the technology anyway due to sanctions that won't be true for long
793.
by staunton 4y ago
I for one generally distrust what any "deep part of me" says about AI related topics, especially if it says "AI can't do X". It's fooled me too many times.
794.
by staunton 4y ago
My impression (after suggesting it elsewhere) is that a lot of HN generally agrees with banning adds.
795.
by staunton 4y ago
> Of course it will not be stopped One way or another, it will definitely be stopped. At some point, civilization collapse would end the burning of fossil fuels at scale. The question is at what point it will stop and whether any tipping
796.
by staunton 4y ago
I'm arguing that "war harms trade and has a huge economic cost" is not on its own a strong argument for "war is not going to happen". The cost was huge then but not large enough to prevent war. How do we know it&#x2
797.
by staunton 4y ago
> if I was dealing with such things I would always record every conversation on some tiny recorder that would also be illegal though, and could not be used in court as evidence? (Not a lawyer, not legal advice) On the other hand, nowaday
798.
by staunton 4y ago
I don't think that analysis is quite convincing. Before WW1, you also had economics calculations thrown around. The economic cost of a conflict seemed huge and insurmountable. And then it indeed was huge.
799.
by staunton 4y ago
Do you believe there is anything at all that does not require a command, besides humans? On a side note, most of the time humans also require a command.
800.
by staunton 4y ago
It's because he has money, influence and can plausibly claim to know things about business. More to the ppint, he has been involved with OpenAI and his reactions might give an indication of the internal politics there surrounding AI sa
801.
by staunton 4y ago
Yes. However, people made the same argument before WW1 and were wrong. Why was the argument wrong then but is right now?
802.
by staunton 4y ago
For example, it could scan social media and use that information to send a very large number of people very personalized messages that manipulate them into doing X. Here, X may include meeting other people to tempt/coerce them into doi
803.
by staunton 4y ago
> given how overhyped this whole thing is, expect another AI Winter even if that's the most likely scenario, that would not mean we should dismiss the danger inherent in some of the alternatives.
804.
by staunton 4y ago
More like Aum Shinrikyo but with an AI as evil mastermind, with brainwashed humans doing its bidding
805.
by staunton 4y ago
The very point of Asimovs laws is that you can't just make up a couple simple laws and rest assured nothing bad will happen
806.
by staunton 4y ago
> we are in a world of mutually assured cooperation. That argument has been made many times before since WW1 to argue that war between major powers is impossible. It has never proven true yet.
807.
by staunton 4y ago
However, Musk thinks (or at least claims to think) that AI alignment is an urgent problem while Altman does not.
808.
by staunton 4y ago
The issue is that mean production has externalities (e.g. climate, labor conditions, environment, biodiversity, animal suffering), some of which we will soon no longer be able to ignore. We can insist on ignoring the problems for as long as
809.
by staunton 4y ago
> Like, the chances of someone sneaking something terrible into an open source kernel seem lower than of any of the hardware coming out of China to be poisoned. what causes you to think that? For example, how often has there been somethi
810.
by staunton 4y ago
The point is that scientists use units appropriate to their domain and community. The general public uses units appropriate for their uses. These usually do not coincide. There would be advantages (e.g. for standardization, "science li

More ›