I just wanted to let you know that you have successfully driven me off of
Not just you, obviously, the site has been in steep decline for a long time, but you were such a huge asshole that you managed to be the last straw. So, congrats for that. I won't be back.
I always figured that people who genuinely believed their employers were likely to kill literally everybody in the near future might burn down a bit more than that, but so far it's mostly been tweets
Having to poke through an about: page and find the thing to toggle to turn off this specific AI feature but not that one, and knowing they'd change it on you a couple of releases later, never filled me with confidence.
One switch in a readily discoverable location in the settings menu and it's all gone? Just the job, killed it now on the laptop and the mobile both.
This is kind of like saying that car wrecks wouldn't happen if we had training and standards that excluded 95% of drivers
More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.
Sam et al warn us to take actions that will save them from bankruptcy
What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?
15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.
Monopolist wants the competition to slow down while they speed up in secret.
They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.
A few days ago there was a story about how an AI store was failing horribly. It can't do that, but at the same time will destroy us?
Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.
Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.
The rebates on the batteries you earn over time, and to do so you must export some of your stored battery power back to the grid during peak hours.
Is this actually a substantial amount of energy? I'm in Utah (Rocky Mountain Power) and RMP also pays me to use my batteries... but the amount of energy they draw is tiny. 8-10 times per week they draw on my batteries, but it's like 4 kW peak draw (my batteries can sustain 20 kW), and generally for less than 30 seconds, so in any given week I'm only contributing like 0.2 kWh. As I understand it, this is because RMP uses my batteries not really to "serve loads", per se, but just as grid stabilization; brief backfill to keep the voltage from sagging.
Obviously my batteries do serve *my* loads, which reduces the load on the grid, but that's not what RMP pays me for.
Does CA make heavier use of residential batteries to feed the grid?
Most of his donations were to Democrats, so he has no chance for that. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F6241262%2Fsam-b...
And JD Vance called him Hitler. Trump accepts changes of heart as long as they include sufficient groveling and self-humiliation. SBF's problem is he doesn't currently have any money, and doesn't have a lot of friends to put up cash for him either. If SCOTUS will overturn his fine on a technicality and he can get some or all of that money back, then he'll have the cash to buy a pardon. Obviously he needs to get it done in the next 2 years, four months.
Like another pseudonym makes a difference or changes the value of what I said.
The fact that you're unwilling to pay the incredibly low price of attaching even a pseudonym to your statement speaks volumes. Not even by mentioning it in your AC post.
This is why they're so keen on robots. They want guards whose loyalty they can really count on when the mob shows up with a guillotine.
That one might surrender and meekly accept their likely death at the hands of the machine, I can believe. But all of them? This isn't the first such claim we've heard about AI danger.
I believe that Yudkowsky believes what he says he believes, for example. He says shut them all down worldwide, immediately, and if there are rogue nations who don't go along with it then launch air strikes on their data centres - even against a nuclear state. He said that three years ago. That's the thinking of a man who believes it's genuinely likely that the machines will kill us all in the near future.
And this is still considered extremist lunacy. That tells me the rest of them don't believe what he does.
If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner
