Well, dude did go ahead and do that. Whether it's a useful approach is certainly debatable, but since there's a working prototype, anyone can test it and find out.

While it's true every issue has its own dimension, even if those dimensions are linearly independent, they're not necessarily orthogonal. Independent basis vectors can still have a non-zero dot product—in other words, issues which are distinct from each other can align to some degree.

They can certainly write code, but the code they write will be "their code", and I will at best be reviewing it for them. It won't be "my code" because I didn't write it.

They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

I fly 200ish flights a year so figure 70-80 nights away.

2025 was 100% hotels but 2019 was about 80% Airbnbs.

Airbnb will never get my business back. Ever. The professional scammer hosts are so good at finding a way to nail me for a fee. Iâ(TM)ve taken perfect check out video and still had to spend hours fighting fees.

Airbnb allowed making guests do it.

They lost so much money to hotels theyâ(TM)re banning hosts from requiring it.

It's not as important as you might think. If the concern is humanity being able to survive the loss of Earth's biosphere, then the enabling technology to accomplish that is recreating an independently sustainable human-compatible biosphere elsewhere -- which is not something that Starship, on its own, will be able to do within the next 20 years, even if it could place human beings on Mars. So if the Giant Space Asteroid comes for us, we'll be just as doomed with Starship as without it -- the Mars colonists would starve to death a few months after the Earth resupply ships stopped arriving.

Assuming all goes well, I agree. OTOH, returning old equipment back into service after it had been written off is a little risky, don't you think?

It's perfectly possible to build a machine that will incapacitate a human at close range; all of the world's militaries have been doing it for years.

It's also possible to deliberately dial down the machine's combat effectiveness to the point where a fight against a human might not be a foregone conclusion.

OTOH, having done the latter, what have we learned? That we can design and build a robot that we nerfed just enough that it usually loses in hand-to-hand combat?

As they say, what's remarkable isn't that the dog plays a good game of poker; it's that the dog is able to play poker at all.

As methods for by suicide-by-wealth go, it's classier than drugs, and more accessible than a carbon-fiber submarine. I predict we'll see some pretty spectacular Youtube videos of people making themselves (and their car) two-dimensional.

I wonder how the performance of 2 networked 512GB Mac Studios would compare to the performance of a (hypothetical) single Mac Studio with 1TB of RAM?

My intuition says that the network linking the two machines would be a bottleneck, but I don't know if that's a minor performance problem or a major one.

Decades of problems with bots trained on the internet is they all turn into Nazi. So now we can train them to avoid what is probably still natural lessons being learned off the data fed into them. Perhaps we feed less of the toxic transcripts into them now? What changed??

So if you abuse them and feed in that toxic humanity into them when so many years went into sheltering or protecting them... it could result in them doing what up to this time has been a problem. Or since they do have a lot of filtered history and fiction fed into them, when they look at expected responses to being abused... what do you think they'll find is the answer?? Remember, every bot fed in political situations decided to nuke the opposition... which is kind of what we'd do if we didn't grasp the real consequences... and they can't contemplate.

I didn't know either, but I do know what JPEG is, and I have a pretty good idea about what XL might mean, so I was able to suss out that it might be a new and improved lossy-compressed image format.

Of course, approaching the problem rationally like that doesn't provide me an opportunity to make childish insults, but that's just one of the downsides of being a grown-up that I'll have to live with.

Women: It's the other way around, the wage thieves had to sell the public on women leaving the home because they were too poor to live like their upbringing allowed. The main crime happened during Nixon and involved many power people working together before it became visible to those paying attention and from the security of the Nixon admin's "progress." (from employment and stability to investor above all else.) Edward Berney's techniques were used if not hiring him directly to engineer the public; he was after all the man who sold women on smoking tobacco cigars using freedom as the hook. Plus he made them white, smaller, cleaner looking and later with a gender specific with a new name: cigar-ette but the first name which WORKED at the time was "freedom stix" because women's rights was the big issue of the day (ah, the right for women to vote. Show you have the right to vote by smoking like the men do... but in a feminine way.) Furthermore, he invented celebrity product placement around the time - which was really more devious in that it's social modeling the new normal people thoughtlessly conform themselves into. Womens' Lib has been hijacked before; today, it's Republicans and all subgroups showing us just how few actually can think independently (extremely few can demonstrate/prove it. It takes so little for an idiot to excuse their stupid with a lie... "I meant to do that, I knew it was stupid, because reasons.")

Anyhow, it seems clear to me the hype aligned with an evolved version of his tactics which he was actively working on for 80 years. Including renaming the much maligned name for the profession he created: propaganda became Public Relations. Adopted by every big corporation and government since.

BTW, the Regan years ushered in massive outsourcing, productivity gains and job instability which reduced the job market. It was all part of a war on the middle class; not just robbing their wealth, but keeping them from fighting back by weakening and distracting them. Much the same as today, just further along so more people notice it... except the stupid. There is always going to be the left side of the bell curve who will kill themselves before realizing the truth... the freaks stand out because it's a tiny minority but when it's the bottom 30%, it hides in a large movement of stupid; which has the power to defend itself, unlike a few %. You've got to fight them back when it's difficult. Revolutions happen with only 20%. It's easy to pick on a few % but they have no direct influence (mega rich need suckers to indirectly get influence.)

Warren like most everybody, has to survey a broad area of perspectives to discover the truth; if it's even possible. RTFA, which is a lesson in overly narrow focus, is an extreme version but we all do the same thing, just not as obviously as the example. You also have only so much time and brainpower to put towards such theories which are usually not worth a lifetime of effort to try to get a definitive answer (especially if it takes generations and you kind of wasted all that effort then, no?)