And then ... if you want to experience maximal pain, you realize that the "expert computer person" (who is just a PR flack dressed like a nerd) also knows nothing, but they will pretend they do know and say buzzwords and push the company hype wile the "reporter" just nods along dazzled saying "wow this is all beyond me" every now and then.
Throw them all in the sea.
My least favorite genre of tech interview is the one where the person doing the interview is like. "Aw geez I don't understand any of this stuff I'm so glad to talk to this smart person who knows how all of these computers work. It is impossible for me, a journalist, to know anything at all about how computers work even though I cover tech."
And then the expert they are mooning over is some PR flack from a software company dressed up like a nerd. And they just play right along.
Make it stop.
@futurebird They're telling us what *they* are *willing* to do.
An LLM can't do anything of course by itself.
They are telling us that they are willing to hook them up to systems that expect can kill us all
Jabob doesn't really elaborate much in the interview. Now, I saw the headline (because my husband showed it to me saying it was freaking out his coworkers)
I was excited to read about how we'd all die due to climate change or even a vibe coded nuclear plant, but instead there is some mumbling about "super intelligence"
And a reminder the the IPO could be any month now.
Oh boy oh boy.
Ya'll aren't falling for this, right?
“Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.” CNBC
This was on the big networks Jacob must know right?
It's creeping some people out. But I always ask "How"
"How is the AI going to do that exactly?"
Voting in NYC is super easy, mostly because with the density we have to have polling locations all over the city. Most people I know can walk a few blocks to vote.
What is a little too obscure is getting registered. For new residents there isn't really a clear pipeline or check point.
The last poll was for people in any country. This one is US-focused.
How easy is it for you to vote?
How easy is it for you to vote?
(international poll)
If you can't vote or if there isn't voting for any government representation that you can participate in? Pick the last option.
If you are eligible to vote but there are obstacles pick the third option.
Comedy is very very simple. All you need to do is say the thing that everyone knows is true, the most obvious thing, but that one THING that is just not said. (It's just NOT done!)
And because it's not said for silly, awkward, unjustifiable often cowardly reasons, that's the funny part. How everyone goes along with it. And now you ... aren't.
That's it, that's the secret.
but also timing, which might be, uh... a little less trivial.
Could someone who knows @davidgerard to please unblock me and/or unblock our server sauropods.win... or find out why we are blocked?
It's making me sad and I don't know what we did or what happened.
Thanks!
UPDATE: A mod from his server is looking into things and we are looking into things our end too. No need to bug Dave more. I think we can sort this out.
@futurebird Brazil has exactly what you're proposing, it's called pix and it makes Trump extremely angry because it sidelines visa and MasterCard. @Techaltar has a nice video about that and other initiatives in other places https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ls-eE8FVM8E
I researched this in 2019 & came away highly convinced of the necessity to keep *cash*, which is anonymous & (comparatively) cheap to produce, and moreover, its production is very easy to understand: you put ink on paper or you press coins. Not like producing a digital currency.
Authoritarian societies love a cashless economy: all transactions can be identified, tracked. Theoretically you can have anonymous digital currency, but the tech required to produce it makes it suspect.
And I think the disfunction we see is the result of that freeloading. There just isn't enough raw cognitive power behind the money anymore.
The theory that people who are rich are smarter than everyone else doesn't quite make up this gap. And I think it's reasonable to question that theory.
But even assuming it were true money seeking a place to be invested just isn't doing the same work to shape the economy as money spent on products. In a way, this money is along for the ride, depending on those consumer choices to highlight the best places to park. Freeloading.
How intelligent is a million dollars?
A million dollars in the hands of 1000 people with $1000 each will have many carefully considered impacts on a wide range of companies and ventures.
A million dollars in the hands of a single person is much less intelligent.
It's just not going to be spent as carefully. The primary concern is more likely to be simply be earning interest rather than comparing products.
The intelligence of the market is drawn from the collective cognitive power of individuals and institutions making purchasing decisions.
Sometimes the market fails. The most profitable company isn't the one providing the best product or service, it is the largest players who have destroyed all possible competition.
This is the idea behind anti-trust laws and enforcement actions.
But vast concentrations of wealth can have a similar impact to monopolies.
Implicit in our trust in "the market" is this idea that the market is intelligent. Everyone wants to make as much money as possible so the market is supposed to be more powerful than nepotism, than fake products and scam companies that don't deliver what they promise. The market is supposed to reward efficiency, pragmatism, planning for the future and above all it is theorized to support some version of broad public good. Through competition it would reward innovation.
If money is allocated without care the system starts to break down. There are opportunities to make a lot of money without producing anything of value for anyone. More and more people focus on finding these loopholes and not on deciding which loaf of bread is a better value per slice.
And if no one cares about value why work to make products that are valuable? That seems naive. The real way to make money is with a meme coin. Or by selling credit, or by having an IPO, or hosting gambling.
Back in the 80s and 90s Trump launched junky businesses. Selling steak, golf club memberships, watches, wine, any product with the potential for a big markup based on vibes attracted this man.
Today these ventures seem quaint. Why not just sell ... nothing? Sell the opportunity to speculate, and gamble on your future success?
No need to have some junky object to serve as the totem for this transaction. You aren't buying a "Trump Steak" you are buying the idea of wealth and it is worthless.