5k might be a different story, are you actually running it at 5120p with 2.0 scale? You can get that from running `system_profiler SPDisplaysDataType`, if you are running HiDPI with 5k that'd show something like Resolution: "10240 x 5760", UI Looks like "5120 x 2880"
It’s a reason to push one’s teams to have conventions: (1) all commit messages have an issue number (2) all issues have acceptance criteria or link to issues that do.
Then the answer is just one prompt away… (I wish our team was more committed to 2 - will push for it more in the future). Having acceptance criteria in stories linked at the start of each sprint is so important though I think for alignment of work.
Very cool. Instead of MPs I think you might want to say "Representatives" etc. How to fill out the rest of the data too? Anyway, just wanted to +1. And it's cool you're building in an open way.
Thanks! Yeah, it's an artifact, as first parliament I introduced was Sejm. Maybe I'll switch to the "Politicians"? Because I'm going to introduce senators there too.
Drake equation (extrapolated past just the Milky Way galaxy) points to nearly 1 sextillion earth-like planets (starting with 100-200 billion stars * 200 billion - 1 trillion galaxies). I have no doubt there will have been some that developed life and that are much further ahead of where we are.
One way to predict how they would reach out is how we would reach out or make contact (perhaps not visibly) if we had the technology, wisdom, etc 1 million years into the future. I think we would do it an imperceptible, but perhaps watchful, curious way. So I think that exists - for more or less all intensive purposes it is "no contact." But not due to lack of capability or lack of observance. The statistics/probabilities are just highly predictive that many millions of such "civilizations" already exist. And like with life on Earth, they combine and benefit from diversity as they grow further. But like with responsible life they do not interfere with life for the most part that is still just barely learning to replicate itself consciously (i.e., with AI). The part we are going through now is probably some of the more interesting parts to study in isolation - there's no benefit in interfering at this point given we do not have very sophisticated new things to say. Our information is not very compressed. It's slow. We're like sloths etc. Again, project a million years forward with AI and look back at our present period - or look back at neanderthal periods in human history. There was some interesting art on walls etc., but it's not something that would make sense to interrupt.
I think it wouldn't make sense to interrupt unless it's ready to sort of eradicate itself by accident. So maybe that's when aliens step in (sort of like gardeners if a plant is seriously at risk). Otherwise it probably develops the most unique, useful information if it "gestates" independently. Sort of like a fine fruit. But more practically it needs to get to a dense enough information state where "communicating" with it is possible and interesting (i.e., not just 99.999999% of the time is it becoming like the advanced sentient beings by learning from them - i.e., where it can truly have a dialogue at the speed of something more advanced).
With general relativity we know time can be relative to mass. So for other extremely advanced sentient beings, they don't have to be "impatient." They truly can wait until we get interesting. And maybe then grow us again and see if they can reproduce the experiment and fork off along a particularly interesting bit that is useful for broader intelligence/exploration in the universe. And sometimes maybe it makes sense to graft together two different lifeforms. But probably like with forests for the most part life forms grow independently until their "information" (in the widest possible sense of life) gets potentially useful to the broader group.
Right now we feel early. Like teenagers learning to explore. Of course that's biased by the human development cycle - broader development is unlikely to be like that. It does seem like it'd be more like (this is going to sound really crazy) chariots of fire - fireballs of knowledge growing in various places. And it's more like you want to grow the most energy / information. And information is only information if it is useful/new/diverse from what already exists.
I’m not so sure. Life might be out there, but intelligent life capable of even wondering what those blinky things are in their sky seems exceedingly rare. Just in the one place we know it exists and took about 40% of the age of the universe and about 5 billion different tries just to get us to the point of looking up and wondering.
Someone needs to be the first or most advanced. So why not us? Maybe the answer to the Fermi paradox is: ”There just isn’t anyone out there, yet and may never be.”
Yes, I think you have the right idea. Something like "a force driving towards entropy/interestingness/exploration" is a fundamental in this universe. Maybe that is consciousness! Inside us all :)
“In which some stereotypes are resoundingly confirmed” - so the post is confirming stereotypes of differences between women and men by highlighting the extremes in difference (not the actual counts)? It’s misleading. The gender differences are less stark if you use better charts and don’t include activities that men literally can’t do (that’s not a “stereotype” that’s human anatomy).
I believe in AGI because I believe you can estimate where a line is going by its slope. Is there not a way to evaluate the resilience of a rate of change? Like the variance of that rate of change? If so you could almost prove with greater and greater certainty that we will get there.
Interestingly the Gemini summary is nowhere near as good. But when it is... how helpful will that be! So many things with a very good summary will save so much time / avoid having to dive into unless truly in need of the details.
But the quality of the summary - and maybe the ability to expand it if slightly more details are required - and the low latency with that - are all super important. In that sense, AI can potentially save a lot of time in getting the right information quickly.
I summarise YT videos with Gemini all the time. You can easily control the length and depth of the summary & get it to focus on particular things etc, before investing time in watching it, only to find out it's promotional, superficial, clickbait, or some combination of all 3.
Does Gemini really does a good job at detecting promotional video ? For example, that one video discussed in this post is one huge promotion for his friend product but it is actually built in a way that clearly appeals to nerdy audience. The video boasts the rigorous testing, provides scientific explanations, nerdy jokes, etc.
What Gemini says about that ?
So if one causes $1B in damages one has to pay a fine of $10M? Similarly for other "catastrophic" damages? WTF. I am very AI pilled but this is no regulation at all. Suppose OpenAI pays their engineers $1M a year. In what world do they have any incentive to work to avoid a $10k fine? Let alone a $1M fine for "catastrophic" damage?
reply