I'm curious as to how this 3-letter Twitter handle was heisted.
xAI
251–260 of 271 posts
Re: xAI
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that why they've stopped publicly reporting disengagement data and stopped seeking certification in California?
Sure, you can guess at motives behind two among countless thousands of business decisions. Or you can observe progress of the FSD Beta software released to customers.
Please tell me how I can observe that progress when they have stopped doing any kind of objective public reporting. What are the metrics you deem relevant to track, since not reporting safety data is just a random business decision in your mind?
Re: xAI
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you can guess at motives behind two among countless thousands of business decisions. Or you can observe progress of the FSD Beta software released to customers.
Please tell me how I can observe that progress when they have stopped doing any kind of objective public reporting. What are the metrics you deem relevant to track, since not reporting safety data is just a random business decision in your mind?
A count of all-cause disengagements is not "safety data", nor is it "objective public reporting". Much like LoC it can be a signal of progress early on but these days it's ambiguous noise given that many disengagements occur because of reasons other than safety, such as spotting a good place to park moments before reaching a destination. But even where a disengagement is safety related, the data can be confounded — especially given that there has been a rather dramatic uptick in assertiveness in recent releases, revealing further edge cases masked by prior conservativeness.
It's funny, because it reminds me of provisional drivers in my home city of Sydney, Australia. Drivers with less than 1 year of road experience must show a red [P] plate on their vehicle. Drivers with between 1 and 3 years of road experience must show a green [P] plate. This is interesting to me because I consistently find that red [P] drivers are mostly conservative and green [P] drivers are mostly overconfident to the point of dangerous.
Some might say we shouldn't allow people with between 1 and 3 years of road experience to drive on our roads.
Re: xAI
#254I wonder if the 'true nature of the universe' refers to the simulation hypothesis? There's a belief in some circles that a sufficiently powerful AGI would be able to 'hack the simulation.'
Re: xAI
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will be vaporware, like 90% of what Elon offers.
I remember when half the internet was convinced that the Model 3 was vaporware. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13216427
There is exactly 1 opinion stating that model 3 is vaporvawe, on a thread with 215 answers...
Re: xAI
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is literally nothing wrong with ethics in AI, or any other field of science. What is wrong is this woke supremacist nonsense, that some imbecile in Silicon Valley can dictate the truth about the world according to the woke bible, that's where the problem lies. Americans have gotten really intolerant of other cultures and ways of life. There's 8 billion people on this planet, ffs. We don't need the heavy handed…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: xAI
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious where this downward spiral is happening. Sure, Twitter doesn't look to be doing so well. Is one data point sufficient for this spiral?
When I was first reading about Musk, 12 years ago, I was extremely impressed, to the point of being ready to invest in Tesla and SolarCity. However, when Elon entered the AI space about 7 years ago it became clear to me that: (i) he is entering a field that he doesn't know, while talking about it as if he knew it, (ii) marketing and hype matter to him more than science.
> marketing and hype matter to him more than science.
You're assuming he's not exploiting the marketing and hype so he can fund the science that's needed.
Re: xAI
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was first reading about Musk, 12 years ago, I was extremely impressed, to the point of being ready to invest in Tesla and SolarCity. However, when Elon entered the AI space about 7 years ago it became clear to me that: (i) he is entering a field that he doesn't know, while talking about it as if he knew it, (ii) marketing and hype matter to him more than science.
> marketing and hype matter to him more than science. You're assuming he's not exploiting the marketing and hype so he can fund the science that's needed.
I didn't make that assumption. I'm just saying that overpromising and underdelivering, due to a lack of a broad understanding of AI research, can backfire, create distrust, and in the end slow science down, e.g., lead to another AI winter...
Re: xAI
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does supporting this idea make him fascist?
I don't think supporting this idea alone makes someone fascist, but diminishing of democracy is one of the pillars of fascism.
Well… by that definition we’ve got a government very invested in expanding fascism.
But most people are fascist at some level if the definition is simply diminishing democracy.
Re: xAI
#260> The goal of xAI is to understand the true nature of the universe. People are misinterpreting this as the research goal. No, it's an implicit negation of an ethos - AI Ethics, Trust & Safety, ESG, Politically Correct - that have dominated decision making in product and hiring in tech for the past decade. Whether or not you agree with him, it's hard to deny that Musk is the only one offering researchers an escape fro…
You nailed it. This is a cultural statement affirming rationalism and countering post-modernism.