More about that hypothesis in a book by Voltaire, which explains why according to a theory of Leibniz everything will actually be just fine.
We don't need to worry about catastrophic risk. What if everything goes right, instead? Leibniz says it should, in fact it couldn't possibly go any better.
If anything, the transformer style attention architecture and language models have pushed AGI further into the future because the vast majority of finding for AGI research is going into the dead end of transformer style architecture and language models, pulling it away from methods that actually could achieve AGI.
I think this comes in with the wrong assumptions from the start. The thing that US vs Apple taught us is to not demand access publicly, this puts companies in an awkward spot. If approached more tacitly, gag order etc the company has nothing to gain but everything to lose.. and more likely to comply. I hugely doubt that intentional backdoors don’t exist for the most powerful countries / people
You email the RNA strand (a text file) to a lab along with some money. The lab converts that information into a physical object (read: virus) and sends it back to you in the mail.
Knowledge work has changed...But it doesn't solve company internal governance nor politics.
When it takes anywhere between 2 weeks and 3months to do anything ( including approvals for non prod access) in most organizations...Code has never been the problem.
Agreed, think the first user rule I ever put into Cursor was "Don't write code comments unless absolutely necessary to explain something that couldn't just be inferred"
They know your preferred atmosphere, actor performance, editing, sound effects, etc, more accurately than you do, or are willing to tell them, based on your actual watching patterns.
Most people don't have the introspection and honesty to build an unbiased psychographic profile of themselves, much less share it with Netflix.
If you never saw PM do stupid shit, as someone at a company or even "just" as customer, then you're the stupid PM in spe, do not pass go, do not argue. That's not "just a thought", and is confirmed by the complete lack of reading comprehension in the second paragraph. Nobody unable to parse such a brief comment is fit to judge the qualify of engineers or even the soundness of a LEGO structure. Some who can parse it but punctually pretends they can't may be able to judge things but their judgement is useless to the outside, being untrustworthy. I'm just the messenger, this follows from very simply principles you could have simply briefly considered before launching your comment.
Something I've been worried about for years is the proliferation of technologies that give ever smaller numbers of people with smaller amounts resources the ability to impact billions of people, in potentially irreversible ways. Combined with automation, this is a recipe for disaster. We're clearly lacking in the ability to regulate and govern ourselves, and real world market forces (as opposed to the hypothetical free market) encourage reckless aggressiveness at the level of companies and countries.
Although, I must admit, as a doomer, I'm pleasantly surprised things aren't already worse than they are.
One of the easiest and most effective AI regulations would be to simply require all these labs to run all incoming requests through a suite of the most advanced models asking if the request is likely to be a pathogenic agent.
From what I know personally, Firefox truly is responsible with user data. Though -- to steel man your point -- all the data Firefox sells is through their subsidiary Anonym, which goes through great lengths to anonymize all user data that can't be tied to any individual.
Example: selling market preferences of a town rather than the individual people in it.
I'm just meaning people here are looking for a "does it work", a binary yes/no. Not a precise measurement of exactly how perfectly the digital signal is making it through the wire. They don't care exactly what the SNR is or whatever, they just want to know when they plug in the cable for a given need will this cable work?
You don't need a six figure oscilloscope or logic analyzer to know "does it work".
In x86 land, there are, as a practical matter, four ISAs: real/v8086 mode, 16-bit protected mode, 32-bit protected mode, and 64-bit “long” mode. Machine code targeting one of these will be executed correctly by the CPU as long as the CPU is in the right mode. (Really it’s messier — there are the CS.D, CS.L, and SS.B bits plus the control bits for v8086, protected and long mode, but this barely matters.)
Sure, this is messy. But, critically, on x86, these are all modes, and any CPU that supports them makes them detectable and supports them in the same way. If you run long mode code outside long mode, some codes will be interpreted as the wrong instruction. But you will not find multiple different CPUs that decode valid instructions differently. If I run your weird old x86 code, either it will run correctly or it will fault.
Oh, and all these modes are older than RISC-V. To the extent that there are lessons to be learned, RISC-V should have learned them.
The fact that you can apparently find two RISC-V CPUs that decode some ordinary user mode instructions based on published standards as entirely different operations is bizarre, to say the least. The fact that the relevant CPU features can’t even be enumerated in user mode just makes it worse.
(There are edge cases in x86. Some invalid opcodes have different lengths on different vendors’ CPUs. This is not a problem in practice because, one way or another, they fault. There was also a little glitch in the 64-bit design where some really really old x87 FPU code that uses exceptions cannot be corrected handled by a kernel on a modern CPU.)
Out of curiousity, how does this apply to nightmares ending in certain death or grevious injury (driving off a bridge, falling down a well, being chased by zombies and unable to move, etc.)?
Yes, it's treatable with antibiotics and people that are treated get less sick. As stated in the article, prophylactic treatment with Doxycycline is the standard of care. Testing the tick is an alternative to that rather than something that should be expected to increase treatment...
The article also mentions that symptoms sometimes persist after treatment with antibiotics.
That's his own personal style of "distractionary" politics. It's really no different from the commonplace adversarial politicking of other American politicians (that all seem have to adopted in the last 4-5 decades), where whatever one says or do is cheered by one group and treated as something repulsive by the other. You getting irritated or offended by what he says is the desired response because it distracts you from the real issues.
