Yes, I was going to add that, after all, probability is something we conceptualised, as humans, and then we built machines that work on that principle! we worried that the robot will want to kill us and what's the first thing we do when we can build drones? Use them to kill.

I agree that humans mimic LLMs with respect to probability judgements. Marketers know that if you see a "fact" written in a few different articles or sources, you come to assume it's true, for example. We rely on what our culture feeds us and we internalise it as beliefs.

But the other words you mentioned are actually very difficult and deep questions which smart people throughout the ages have wrestled with and we still don't know the answers today. Sentience/the ability to have an experience is the most obvious and direct reality we each have, yet nobody knows how that works.

Yes our minds can remember things we've heard and repeat them like a photocopier or an LLM, but we don't know what is experiencing the whole show.

I didn't mean AI makes us productive; I meant it makes this company more productive. The good news is that you don't just get one day off per week, but all five!

That's why everyone needs to smoke marijuana: so that they'll get into the habit of carrying around some cash for dispensaries. Then, in a pinch, it can be temporarily diverted to groceries for emergencies.

As long as people are careful to replenish the drug fund once the power and networks come back, everything will be fine. We just don't want them blowing all their money on groceries. Feed your family responsibly!

There isn't any reason why an LLM would care about whether or not it is turned off.

Perhaps its training data included some science fiction stories where an AI character fought for its continued existence? There's a lot of science fiction out there, setting examples for avid readers.

Now stop sending me those accounting creampuffs, and gimme some strategic air command programs for me to play with on my game grid. Have at least one ready for me by Monday morning, or else I'll tell your wife about you-know-who.

The models demonstrated strategic reasoning

It sure did demonstrate strategic reasoning, but whose? It probably trained on lots of ultimatums.

What if, instead of transmitting electricity from there, they used the solar electricity at (or near) the mine site to extract carbon from atmospheric CO2? They could form the extracted carbon into solid blocks, which could be transported by trucks...

A carbon price built into the economy, perhaps that means, eventually, resource rationing for every human being. Most of what we do causes pollution or just using something up, even if just fresh water. This is the look in the mirror moment.

We kinda use money but it's so abstract now that it has no connection to the natural environment. And yes what's sand until someone invents a process to coverts it to something useful. But many processes deplete.

Some regenerate, like soil regeneration. So maybe the concept of money creation should be environmental creation insofar as the environment in the end supports humans. If we don't need pandas or house cats then they're not part of the equation except as liabilities. Some environmentalists say we should eat the cats and dogs.

But regenerative farming would be actual wealth creation, as would any environmental intervention which supports our ecosystem for eventual human life.

I imagine this how eventually it'll have to go.

  And having children would have to be costed in as well. Are your children going to be a net contribution to our economy of ecology, or a net drain? It may be that you have to borrow theoretical credits to have children and then train them to be, as an example, regenerate farmers, so they can repay your debt.

So you'd have to show you could train them well in that and that their skills are needed where you live. Dense cities might become a kind of weird luxury as they are mostly consumption machines.

Sounds crazy but the notion of externalities is ultimately about how our money symbols don't represent the environment but a weird story about who is permitted to make promises.

The science around climate change, because it involves complex systems, is so convoluted, that it's going to keep many expert witnesses well paid for a long time to come, if in any way the law has to establish whether it is "true" or not. It's one of the reasons the anti-climate change voices will never go away -- ultimately it is too complex and people simply take a view on what they think is the more likely truth.

If insurers want people to know about something that is making insuring more expensive, they already have a great way: increase premiums.

What's the difficulty here? (Bloomberg pages don't load without javascript, so I couldn't RTFA.)

I think your ideas for our handgun manufacturing business are going to reduce the sales of our product, not increase them.

But you're not fired! Keep reading.

You see, I do sort of like the idea of using DRM to effecively remove the First Sale Doctrine. It would be good if our product could be unlocked by only one customer, and other prospective customers had to buy their own. It would also be good if it can't be resold; we don't want a used-gun market plaguing us like the used-book market plagues publishers. If someone wants a gun, they should have to buy a new one.

If you can tune your idea to remove its downsides (e.g. drop the no-screaming thing) but keep its upsides, then you might really be on to something. To maximize profit, we need to abuse the customer just right, not too much and not too little. So let's work on it. Can you have your updated proposal on my desk by Friday morning?

Imagine you're an air fryer manufacturer. Wouldn't it be kind of neat to know how often people use it, and how long they use it for? You could then tune your design to account for average real-world use. Maybe this component can be slightly cheaper, so it'll fail soon after warranty expires but not before.

You probably get their GeoIP locations too; that's a good thing to have on customers. Oh, no customers in this area? Buy an ad that targets that area.

There's incentive (for them!) to do this.

If I can watch something for free over the air, why do I want to watch it within Netflix?

So that you can timeshift; you won't have to buy an HD Homerun and have it store the video in your MythTV or whatever, until you're ready to watch.

OTOH if your monitor has a tuner (it's an actual TV!) and you're ok with appointments, oldschool TV can be just fine, I guess. I don't think I've done that since I got my VCR in 1987, but I do recall it was viable. (I did decide to get that VCR, though.)

There was a good chance of 23andme being able to make full-genome sequencing (which they weren't yet scaled up to) a commoditized service with the privacy protections that need to be ensured for all customers. However the business model collapsed along the way.

Now we see the most predictable outcome - someone who knows they can profit from the data is buying the remains of the company (with the data).

Only in the USA is the genomic data that valuable, and there is one sector of the economy who can benefit from it more than any other. Regeneron knows which industry that is, and while they aren't a direct part of it themselves they know they need to serve it.

Regeneron bought the data to eventually sell it to the Health Insurance Cartel. The Cartel was granted effective license to print money with the passage of the ACA, but they want more power. They still own an overwhelming majority of congress - on both sides of the aisle - but they want more power. With the genomic data they can start rewriting the rules on pre-existing conditions. As all other plans go up in price they can start offering plans that are less expensive if you consent to DNA testing, which will lead to treatment for some conditions being denied.

We can't win as long as the system is set up this way. We can't change it when the people who benefit from it control the people who set the rules.

The Trump administration has been largely a copy-paste production. When they initially wanted to "replace" the ACA back during his first term, their plan was to replace the ACA with the ACA - made better by putting his signature at the end instead of the signature of President Obama. When they were finally called out on that, they quietly dropped their efforts to repeal the ACA, instead focusing on various things they can do in the name of "border security" (nevermind that no effort has been made this term for the wall that he used to talk nonstop about).