541–550 of 678 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the nuance is Elon only wants what benefits him most at the time. There was no philosophical change, other than now he’s competing. He's allowed these opinions, we’re allowed to ignore them and lawyers are allowed to use this against him.
That is true of most people and is the most common reason people change their minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean nobody needs to bother with anecdotes here. chatgpt.com hit 3.7B visits in October and was #8 in worldwide internet traffic. Open AI say they have 300M weekly active users and 1B messages per day . The idea that it's some fad with no utility or that the general public knows little about it is at this point laughable. It's the software product with by far the fastest adoption any software product has ever seen.…
Yes, because it is free . How many paid users? Is a paid user generating profit right now? Google had to inject advertising in its search results to start earning real money. What will OpenAI do? That's the PMF.
At some point chatgpt will become crap and the cycle will repeat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can catch a bus every five minutes a one minute walk from my house in Utrecht. Those buses go anywhere. In Oslo I could ride the T-bane to the forest or to downtown. In Tokyo it was obvious public transit is the only way to go. All the places I lived outside the USA I would never take a taxi much less a robot one in lieu of Public transit.
Because taxis are not cheap enough. Once they become cheap enough, by not having a driver, the equation changes. Travel becomes more convenient.
The only exception is the US, and even then that doesn’t apply in Manhattan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I need to choose just one? He’s the only person with a serious presence on the planet. He builds a landing pad that works exclusively with his rockets, and ANYTHING that happens on the planet will be going through him. Hell, he can probably convince China or the US to pay to build the habitats if he wants to.
But nothing will be happening on the planet, except a few rovers, because there is nothing of value whatsoever on Mars that is not literally a thousand times cheaper to find/do on Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving won't take over by just being available in the new cars people are buying anyway. It'll take over when people find it cheaper to ride robotaxis than to own a vehicle at all. That's potentially a much quicker transition, requiring significantly fewer new vehicles.
Nobody is going to sit and wait for a robo uber in the suburbs for ten minutes to go to the grocery store ten miles down the road. This is the main problem, America has suburbanised itself to hell and no amount of robo taxis will create the world you are suggesting. And elsewhere in the world there’s no need because most places have adequate public transit which solves the problem way more efficiently than robo taxis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving won't take over by just being available in the new cars people are buying anyway. It'll take over when people find it cheaper to ride robotaxis than to own a vehicle at all. That's potentially a much quicker transition, requiring significantly fewer new vehicles.
Nobody is going to sit and wait for a robo uber in the suburbs for ten minutes to go to the grocery store ten miles down the road. This is the main problem, America has suburbanised itself to hell and no amount of robo taxis will create the world you are suggesting. And elsewhere in the world there’s no need because most places have adequate public transit which solves the problem way more efficiently than robo taxis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because taxis are not cheap enough. Once they become cheap enough, by not having a driver, the equation changes. Travel becomes more convenient.
In a city I don’t take public transport over uber due to the cost but due to the convenience and speed. The only exception is the US, and even then that doesn’t apply in Manhattan.
From Musk's email: "Frankly, what surprises me is that the AI community is taking this long to figure out concepts. It doesn’t sound super hard. High-level linking of a large number of deep nets sounds like the right approach or at least a key part of the right approach." Genuine question I've always had is, are these charlatans conscious of how full of shit they are, or are they really high on their own stuff? Also…
Amongst people who think probabilistically, this isn't a weird statement. It's a very low precision guestimate. There is a qualitative difference between 50-50, 90-10, 99-1 etc, and it's only their best guess anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you can generate numbers between 0 and 1 doesn't make them meaningful probabilities. Are these based on data? No, they're rhetorical tools used to sound quantitative and scientific. Nobody will be applying the calculus of probability to these meaningless numbers coming out of someone's ass. And most importantly, is he himself willing to bet a significant fraction of his fortune based on these socalled pr…
A conversation like this happens every minute between investors, people who work at hedge funds, trader types, bookies, people who work in cat insurance etc. They just think this way. They are "priors" in Bayes world. Based on intuition. Notice the lack of precision. Nobody says "50%" or "10%" to sound scientific. I'm 99.9% certain it's better than using ambiguous terms "likely", "probably", "certainly possible" and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>people will move on to the next fad AI isn't really a fad. It's going to something more like electricity, say.
People have been saying that for a few years now. I've been using it as a very advanced autocomplete while coding for that time and not much else.