I've mentioned this before, but I had Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude jointly design me an aircraft, along with its engines. The sheer intricacy and complexity of the problem is such that it can take engineers years to get to what all three AIs agree is a good design. Grok took a look at as much as it could, before running out of space, and agreed it was sound.

Basically, I gave an initial starting point (a historic aircraft) and had each in turn fix issues with the previous version, until all three agreed on correctness.

This makes it a perfectly reasonable sanity check. If an engineer who knows what they're doing looks at the design and spots a problem, then AI has and intrinsic problem with complex problems, even when the complexity was iteratively produced by the AI itself.

Natural NNs appear to use recursive methods.

What you "see" is not what your eyes observe, but rather a reconstruction assembled entirely from memories that are triggered by what your eyes observe, which is why the reconstructions often have blind spots.

Time seeming to slow down (even though experiments show that it doesn't alter response times), daydreaming, remembering, predicting, etc, the brain's searching for continuity, the episodic rather than snapshot nature of these processes, and the lack of any gap during sleep, is suggestive of some sort of recursion, where the output is used as some sort of component of the next input and where continuity is key.

We know something of the manner of reconstruction - there are some excellent, if rather old, documentary series, one by James Burke and another by David Eagleman, that give elementary introductions to how these reconstructions operate and the physics that make such reconstructions necessary.

It's very safe to assume that neuroscientists would not regard these as anything better than introductions, but they are useful for looking for traits we know the brain exhibits (and why) that are wholly absent from AI.

They're not replicating our capabilities, nor could they. The architecture is completely wrong, as is the design philosophy. Brains are not classifiers, the way neural network software is, they are abstraction engines and dynamic compositors.

You will find that books written by the infinite monkeys approach are less useful than books written by conscious thought, and that even those books are less useful than books written and then repeatedly fact-checked and edited by independent conscious thought.

It is not, in fact, the book that taught you things, but the level of error correction.

You are correct.

When it comes to basic facts, if multiple AIs that have independent internal structure and independent training sets state the same claim as a fact, then that's good evidence that it's probably not a hallucination but something actively learned, but it's not remotely close to evidence of it being fact.

Because AIs have no understanding of semantics, only association, that's about as good as AI gets.

I can't think of a single other country that claims to be civilised that has a tax code so complicated you need vast amounts of software and a high-power computer just to file what is properly owed.

TLDR version: The system is engineered to be too complex for humans, which is the mark of a very very badly designed system that is suboptimal, inefficient, expensive, and useless.

Let's pretend for a moment that you've a tax system that taxes the nth dollar at the nth point along a particular curve. We can argue about which curve is approporiate some other time, my own opinion is that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay on what you earn. However, not everyone agrees with that, so let's keep it nice and generic and say that it's "some curve" (which Libertarians can define as a straight line if they absolutely want). You now don't have to adjust anything, ever. The employer notifies the IRS that $X was earned, the computer their end performs a definite integral between N (the top of the curve at the last point you paid tax) and N+X, and informs the employer that N+X is the money owed for that interval.

Nobody actually does it this way, at the moment, but that's beside the point. We need to be able to define what the minimum necessary level of complexity is before we can identify how far we are from it. The above amount has no exemptions, but honestly, trying to coerce people to spend money in particular ways isn't particuarly effective, especially if you then need a computer to work through the form because you can't understand what behaviours would actually influence the tax. If nobody (other than the very rich) have the time, energy, or motivation to find out how they're supposed to be being guided, then they're effectively unguided and you're better off with a simple system that simply taxes less in the early amounts.

This, then, is as simple as a tax system can get - one calculation per amount earned, with no forms and no tax software needed.

It does mean that, for middle-income and above, the paycheck will vary with time, but if you know how much you're going to earn in a year then you know what each paycheck will have in it. This requires a small Excel macro to calculate, not an expensive software package that mysteriously needs updating continuously, and if you're any good at money management, then it really really doesn't matter. If you aren't, then it still doesn't matter, because you'd still not cope with the existing system anyway.

In practice, it's not likely any country would actually implement a system this simple, because the rich would complain like anything and it's hard to win elections if the rich are paying your opponent and not you. But we now have a metric.

The UK system, which doesn't require the filling out of vast numbers of forms, is not quite this level of simple, but it's not horribly complicated. The difference between theoretical and actual is not great, but it's tolerable. If anyone wants to use the theoretical and derive an actual score for the UK system, they're welcome to do so. I'd be interested to see it.

The US, who left the UK for tax reasons (or was that Hotblack Desiato, I get them confused) has a much much more complex system. I'd say needlessly complicated, but it's fairly obvious it's complicated precisely to make those who are money-stressed and time-stressed pay more than they technically owe, and those who are rich and can afford accountants for other reasons pay less. Again, if anyone wants to produce a score, I'd be interested to see it.

(Okay, I take that back: there's one version in which I'd be okay with them lionizing Sam, but it'd have to involve actual lions)

I just hope they're not going to lionize Sam. That's the last thing we need. He pulled a classic sociopath-style manipulation to retain his position in the face of legitimate concerns about his abuse of power in the company.

Life is WAY better after the industrial revolution than it was before it.

People have this fantasy image of what life used to be like, thinking of picturesque farms, craftsmen tinkering in workshops, clean air, etc. The middle ages were filth, you worked backbreaking labour long hours of the day, commonly in highly risky environments, even the simplest necessities cost a large portion of your salary, you lived in a hovel, and you died of preventable diseases at an average age of ~35 (a number admittedly dragged down by the fact that 1/4th of children didn't even survive a single year).

If it takes people of similar social status as you weeks of labour to produce the fibre for a set of clothes, spin it into yarn, dye it, weave it, and sew it, then guess what? It requires that plus taxes and profit weeks of your labour to be able to afford that set of clothes (and you better believe the upper classes were squeezing every ounce of profit from the lower class they could back then). Decreasing the amount of human labour needed to produce things is an immensely good thing. Furthermore, where did that freed up labour go? Into science, into medicine, into the arts, etc etc. Further improving people's quality of life.

And if your response is "But greater production is more polluting!" - I'm sorry, do you have any understanding of how *miserably* polluted cities in the middle ages were? Where coal smoke poured out with no pollution controls, sewage ran straight into rivers that people collected water from and bathed in, where people extensively used things like arsenic and mercury and lead and asbestos, etc etc? The freed-up labour brought about by the industrial revolution allowed us to *learn* and to *fix problems*.

Meh, you do you. I'm rooting for the Torment Nexus.

Which of those things hit 800 million users in 17 months?
Which of those things hit such high annual recurring revenue rates so fast?
Which of those saw the cost of using the tech decline by 99% over two years?

Heck, most of them aren't even new technologies, just new products, often just the latest version of older, already-commonly-used products.

And re. that last one: it must be stressed that for the "cost of using the tech" to decline 99% over two years per million tokens, you're also talking about a similar order of reduction of power consumption per million tokens, since your two main costs are hardware and electricity.

You're looking at three months of very noisy data and drawing some pretty dramatic conclusions from said minimal data.

Winter demand is heavily dependent on weather. You're mainly seeing the impacts of weather on demand.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F2024%25E2%2580%259325_North_American_winter

"The 2024–25 North American winter was considerably colder then the previous winter season, and much more wintry across the North American continent, signified by several rounds of bitterly cold temperatures occurring."

You don't need to simulate all that, at least initially. Scan in the brains of people who are at extremely high risk of stroke or other brain damage. If one of them suffers a lethal stroke, but their body is otherwise fine, you HAVE a full set of senses. You just need to install a way of multiplexing/demultiplexing the data from those senses and muscles, and have a radio feed - WiFi 7 should have adequate capacity.

Yes, this is very scifiish, but at this point, so is scanning in a whole brain. If you have the technology to do that, you've the technology to set up a radio feed.

You're asking the wrong question, you should be asking things more along the lines of:

"When is BO going to send humans to space for more than a few minutes?"
"When is blue origin going to send humans to orbit?"
"When is blue origin going to rendezvous and dock with a space station or other craft?"

For now, they've got an expensive carnival ride.

The Koch Brothers paid a bunch of scientists to prove the figures being released by the IPCC and clinate scientists wrong. The scientists they paid concluded (in direct contradiction to the argument that scientists say what they're paid to say) that the figures were broadly correct, and that the average planetary temperature was the figure stated.

My recommendation would be to look for the papers from those scientists, because those are the papers that we know in advance were written by scientists determined to prove the figures wrong and failed to do so, and therefore will give the most information on how the figures are determined and how much data is involved, along with the clearest, most reasoned, arguments as to why the figures cannot actually be wrong.