I'm having a hard time believing this, or at least understanding the decision (not on your part). Why wouldn't they just continue R&D on it rather than drop it entirely?
Many products we use every day start out unsafe and dangerous during the early stages. Why would this be any different?
Hm, this seems like a difficult argument to support.
We shouldn't have laws because "the enemy" doesn't have laws, and thus they are moving faster?
Okay, so "the enemy" or "national security" becomes a reason that can be cited for any reason, at any time, to abolish or ignore any and all regulation?
In what world is that NOT the slippiest of slopes?
Tbf I'm fine with it only one way around; if a journalist has tonnes of notes and data on a subject and wants help to condense those down into an article, assistance with prioritising which bits of information to present to the reader then totally fine.
If a journalist has little information and uses an llm to make "something from nothing" that's when I take issue because like, what's the point?
Same thing as when I see managers dumping giant "Let's go team!!! 11" messages splattered with AI emoji diarrhea like sprinkles on brown frosting. I ain't reading that shit; could've been a one liner.
Another good use of an LLM is to find primary sources.
Even an (unreliable) LLM overview can be useful, as long as you check all facts with real sources, because it can give the framing necessary to understand the subject. For example, asking an LLM to explain some terminology that a source is using.
I have always been fascinated by this interpretation (that capitalism is (retrochronic) AI), which is why I have created a research project on it: https://retrochronic.com
Eh I live in the UK (wasn't born here) and I think they hold onto too much for too long here. How many "examples of a Victorian house" do you really need?
Japan is a perfect example of picking and choosing, keeping the very important things and building new things everywhere else.
How long will the UK keep all of these decrepit buildings? 100 more years? 1000? 10000?
And what a loss to history, in trying to keep "the good old days" alive that you don't allow current and future generations to also leave a mark in history, as if one era is more significant than the other.
Thats my only real gripe with the culture here. Too much looking back and not enough looking forward.
To a degree you have a point. Indeed, this is exactly one of the points of attraction that Asia holds for me. Anecdote: my Japanese girl friend showed me a bunch of Japanese coins. I thought they were cool and asked if I could have one. She agreed and I selected the oldest, to which her response was 'that so British'.
However.... the point I was making was somewhat different. The buildings of Borough market are still there. What has changed is the community, which has been replaced outright. Moreover, it has been replaced with a 'pseudo community' akin to what you might find in an airport - transient office workers looking for somewhere a short distance from city center. It is the commodification of community - sold to the highest bidder.
That transience, ironically, comes from the regulatory structure we try to use to protect community by trying to protect the buildings themselves. The things we've done that make it hard to build end up preventing new downtowns and markets in places that don't have them today, like residential areas. So then everyone's forced to the old markets for all their new needs, transforming them. If we let go, we'd see new downtowns and new markets in places that might be suburbs today, just like the old markets happened - organically, where a developer thinks they'll make money on one.
>People don't realize that all of our problems lately are stemming from lack of truly representative government.
Hard disagree.
I fully believe that we are collectively responsible for all of our problems because we are a shitfuck tragically tribal species who, in a world of ever expanding tribe sizes, desperately cling onto tribe sizes that our tiny brains can handle, hence becoming tribal about a myriad of trivial and pointless things like sports, racism, which bathroom someone uses or which policy on immigrants one supports. Dunbar's number.
And we're so tied up in these micro tribal problems that we completely ignore the macro tribal problems that affect every single one of us. We're shit out of luck we literally evolved to act like this and there's nothing we can do to stop the behaviour; it's innate.
Global temperatures are still rising and will continue to do so. We can try to stop it but we won't be able to.
I don't even think it's the tribalism. Society used to be racist AF and it worked ok. Heck, you could play a pretty amusing "guess the race/nationality" game with spicy quotes from 1880-1920.
I think the problem is that by making everything objective, systemic, numerically tracked, quantified, etc, etc. we've actively selected for evil people. The people who get ahead in those systems, the groups who's interests get served, are not the good ones. They are the evil ones who have no qualms about exploiting the vulnerabilities and oversights of the system. In our quest to optimized everything, we have optimized for the prioritization of dishonest people and bad causes that attract dishonest people and it shows at every level.
Ted K would probably have something to say about this.
If it wasn't numbers showing finance it was previously unrealised numbers showing muscle, bone density and height.
Imo, if we took tribe numbers now and went back to old world cave and stick we would see similar problems as we do today.
And yes agree about participation within one or more tribes, very similar to prisoner's dillema but with n>2 participants this time, and defection therefore has more of a payoff for every n.
There is, it's eugenics. We can absolutely select against psychopath traits and select for altruistic, greater good, communal self-sacrificial traits. We have the science.
> how would you implement this without going into nazi-like levels of control on the individual?
I wasn't really talking about the practicality of it, especially because it's the furthest thing from the Overton Window imaginable. Literally everything else is closer to it. Even marrying toddlers, as shown by recent events. Slavery's half-inside the window.
It was just about the fact that it's possible.
> assuming "we have the science".
This isn't really disputable, given how much bigger nature is than nurture. See e.g. POTUS and his dad. Obviously it's not 100%, nothing is, but denying that "we have the science" to massively influence things would be purely out of ideological dislike.
Humans have practiced eugenics on animals on an absurdly huge scale. See domestication and its effects. Humans are animals, the idea that it would somehow be completely different for them has no basis in science.
Lmao you can’t. Eugenics is evil and denies reproductive rights, bodily autonomy at the most basic animal level. It is literally the idea of creating a master race and culling off anyone who doesn’t conform.
If you find yourself in a situation where you want to do something Nazis did — just not that way — you are halfway there.
yea, it's very suspect. regardless, every idiot who claims to have "found the science" has failed to produce anything beyond studies of n=10 (10 is PUSHING IT).
Business has been operating on a management/executive culture for many decades now.
These people get paid millions a year to fly around and shake hands with people aka shit fuck all.
At times in the past I have worked on projects that were rushed out and didn't do a single thing that they were intended to do.
And you know what management's response was? They loved that shit. Ooooh it looks do good, that's so cool, well done. Management circle jerking each other, as if using everyone else's shafts as handles to climb the rungs of the ladder.
It's just...like it kills me that this thing I love, technology/engineering/programming...things that are responsible for many of the best things present in our modern lives, have both been twisted to create some of the worst things in our modern lives in the pursuit of profit. And the people in charge? They don't even care if it works or not, they just want that undeserved promotion for a job that a Simpsons-esque fucking drinking bird is capable of.
Yes the very fact that billionaires exist mean our species has failed.
I do not believe that there is a legitimate billionaire on the planet, in that they haven't engaged in stock manipulation, lobbying, insider trading, corrupt deals, monopolistic practices, dark patterns, corporate tax dodging, personal tax dodging.
You could for example say that the latter are technically legal and therefore okay, but it's my belief that they're "technically legal/loopholes" because we have reached a point where the rich are so powerful that they bend the laws to their own ends.
Our species is a bit of a disappointment. People would rather focus on trivial tribal issues than on anything that impacts the majority of the members of our species. We are well and truly animals.
It's like the stick in bicycle wheel meme.
reply