151–160 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> What could be better is to be happy with what you have. This statement requires further qualification; for example, you certainly wouldn’t say that to someone in an abusive relationship - or someone living in poverty.
People who have more than you existing doesn't have to be a reason that you're unhappy though.
Investors who do nothing but follow the crowd dumped a tonne of money into cryptocurrency / blockchain startups regardless of merit. Now they are doing the same with AI. But AI actually has clear, immediate, and lasting value. Articles like this seem to be written by people who don’t understand the basic concepts about people who don’t understand the basic concepts. Both sets of people just seem to identify the trend…
I think you are being harsh on the critics. A technology can have tremendous value while still attracting grifters and being an early investors' graveyard. Best example is the dot com bubble in 1996 - 2001, the web had truly world-changing potential, but grifting was rife and practically all early investors lost their money unless you were one of the lucky ones who invested in amazon, yahoo, google or ebay out of the…
Not sure how this compares to other recent technology revolutions, but most AI startups seem to be one feature announcement from Microsoft away from bancrupcy. So even with the best intentions of founders, it seems like a really volatile market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least ai seems significantly more useful than crypto.
I feel both things are not really ready for primetime, but i agree AI is way more useful.
The current generation of AI tools is barely a year old and we have seen so much progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving is never going to happen, and its also sitting in some sort of informational blind spot for the people working on it - I have no idea why. There is no such thing as "driving" there is no physical force, or particle. There is no force preventing you from driving in the opposite direction of traffic, or through glass panes. "Driving" is entirely a social phenomnon, the confluence of societal self impositio…
it'll happen but the car won't really be self driving, I think a literal ai robot cheaufer is more likely. AGI will be able to do everything a human can do, including driving. We're IMHO less than a decade, if not less than half a decade from that. If you don't believe me name a scatter chart showing ai papers since 2017. Notice how this year dwarfs all previous years and last year blew the water out of the previous…
Modern "economy". There are a bunch of thousands of guys with a couple to a couple hundred billion each. There are millions of people desperate to own a house and afford life. The rich guys want to be more rich. They're hiring some of the poor suckers to check how others got richer in the past. The answer is tech! New tech is created every couple of years. People hype it up as much as they can. The rich guys give a f…
How do you define "poor"? Net worth of less than $10M? Income less than $1M? Unless you set very strict limits for "poor" like that, the people that the ultra rich hire tend to be rather well off, or at least comfortable, themselves ( by that I mean net worth of >$1M OR income of >$100k. Actual poor people don't built state of the art tech. At best, they work as cleaning staff or in the cafeteria of those companies.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you define "poor"? Net worth of less than $10M? Income less than $1M? Unless you set very strict limits for "poor" like that, the people that the ultra rich hire tend to be rather well off, or at least comfortable, themselves ( by that I mean net worth of >$1M OR income of >$100k. Actual poor people don't built state of the art tech. At best, they work as cleaning staff or in the cafeteria of those companies.…
It's common to project resentment towards individuals onto someone who expresses dissatisfaction with systemic issues. We want to think on our small human scale, but our societies got so big that we can't make sense of them in those terms anymore.
Perhaps, but it's also quite common for people who are really doing quite well to pretend to argue on behalf of actually marginalized groups when struggling for power with their opponents.
The way to tell the difference between those who genuinely want to help marginalized groups and those who just use them as pawns in a power struggle, is that they spend a similar amount of effort to help those groups with problems that do NOT in any way involve taking away power from their political opponents.
The distance between "sort of works" and "works" for AI is considerable. Not infinite. Look at self-driving cars. The first tries were in the late 1950s, with GM's Firebird 3, guided by wires in the road. By the 1980s, the first self-driving vehicles were moving around CMU, very slowly. By the early 1990s, experimental highway driving had been demoed. In the early 2000s, we had the DARPA Grand Challenge, which had of…
Is there a way you could make the path clear to me too? I just don't get it. Sure, I can imagine in principle it's possible. But I don't see how you can already see it's certain. Is there something you can share that will allow me to see why it's certain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-driving is never going to happen, and its also sitting in some sort of informational blind spot for the people working on it - I have no idea why. There is no such thing as "driving" there is no physical force, or particle. There is no force preventing you from driving in the opposite direction of traffic, or through glass panes. "Driving" is entirely a social phenomnon, the confluence of societal self impositio…
> In many countries - you have to regularly deal with drivers going full tilt, on the wrong side of the road. I don't agree with most of your comment but this point is worth examining. I think it's not an argument against self driving for a few reasons: 1. There's lots of places in the world where people driving on the wrong side of the road is uncommon. We can start with self driving there. You can apply this to man…
Movement, is animal like - perceiving self, environment and understanding movement through it. - Movement is universal. Its the application of physics.
Thats not driving.
Driving is a social construct. It is the application of physics while navigating a social world.
Driving is observing the law, observing social constructs (that differ regionally), adapting to new constructs based on location and environment.
Thats the blind spot for self driving proponents. They conflate the two things, but talk primarily about the first.
As a result, you will never get self driving - the assumptions are wrong.
Let me put it this way - you get self driving when a car decides its best course of action is to reverse in traffic, because it perceives a tsunami coming from ahead of it.