341–350 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that "AI" training needs millions of books, papers and web pages, it is a derivative work of all those books. Humans cannot even read a fraction of that and still surpass "AI" in any creative and generative domain. "AI" is a smart, camouflaged photocopier.
Photocopiers are legal. And every piece of art that has ever been produced is derivative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your response is you don’t understand it so nobody else should. Ah I see. I misinterpreted the _you_ in this sentence (to mean me). My main points still stand though: 1. weather is well understood to exhibit chaotic behavior (in the technical sense, not the colloquial sense) 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future As an aside, there was no n…
> As an aside, there was no need to get personal. You've done nothing but be personal, complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical. You started making personal comments, not me. > 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future Quick, everyone, halt all the research into weather prediction, we've already found all the answers. There's no need…
I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way. It wasn’t my intention.
> complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical
I was just responding to your complaint about the downvoting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They're correct and you are not. Nothing to do with "inability to think of possibilities", it's impossible because of literal physics. It's like saying perpetual motion machines could exist if we just think outside the box hard enough. No, we don't have them because thermodynamics .
No, you're conflating something provable with something that isn't. Chaos theory only describes difficulties, in no circumstance does it describe things as "impossible" If you don't understand the difference between the two terms, that would explain a lot. What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening. Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't…
The issue isn’t computation. It’s measurement. It’s not possible to measure all of the factors that go into weather it will rain on a Tuesday at 3 pm 3 months from now (sorry for the terrible pun). It’s small perturbations in initial conditions.
If anything, I'd think that crypto in 2010 had all the hallmarks of a new wave as described. The concept was open to anyone who wanted to tinker with it. It had to be sold to skeptical consumers by wildcat startups. It certainly had the potential to upend the financial industry, but no incumbent would touch it. Yet it did end up more or less being sucked into the gravity well of the incumbents, although in the case of crypto we very much need to consider governments which control the money supply to be the heavyweights, even more so than banks and lenders.
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I'm not sure any new innovation now can escape the gravitational nexus of the duopoly of government and incumbent tech, in a way that would lead to the kind of wild growth and experimentation we had with microprocessors in the 70s.
We had some guy named Satoshi write a paper that basically handed the keys to anyone who wanted to experiment - and 17 years later, after a significant bubble, that wave has done very little to change the status quo.
I suppose if someone released a DIY genome editor or protein folding was solved or, like, a working Mr. Fusion device showed up on Kickstarter, or a "feed"/"seed" a la the Diamond Age made it possible to turn dirt into anything you wanted, or a FTL drive came out of someone's garage or something... yeah. That would seriously upset the incumbents. But even with sci-fi stuff like that, what's the moat once you make your findings public anymore? This article suggests that the only serious moat has ever been that large companies are slowed down by inertia and take some time to spin up once their internal cultures go from deriding something to deciding it's essential.
How do we know if we have stalled to the point that no one will come along and be the next Amazon or Google, until 50 years from now we see that no one did?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ironic if AI actually ended up destroying economic activity that's not destroying economic activity - it's removing a less efficient activity and replace it with a more efficient version. This produces economic surplus. Imagine saying this for someone digging a hole, that if they use a mechanical digger instead of a hand shovel, they'd destroy economic activity since it now cost less to dig that hole!
your example is complete nonsense as digging a hole is not creative in any way at all
Give a boy a shovel, step back & witness unbridled creativity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're conflating something provable with something that isn't. Chaos theory only describes difficulties, in no circumstance does it describe things as "impossible" If you don't understand the difference between the two terms, that would explain a lot. What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening. Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't…
> What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening. The issue isn’t computation. It’s measurement. It’s not possible to measure all of the factors that go into weather it will rain on a Tuesday at 3 pm 3 months from now (sorry for the terrible pun). It’s small perturbations in initial conditions.
The models we have are very coarse, and work for 24 hours (kind of, there are still extreme events that are difficult to be accurate about)
More sensors are being deployed this very second - which will present a finer grained picture.
It's not even at the rocket science part yet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an aside, there was no need to get personal. You've done nothing but be personal, complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical. You started making personal comments, not me. > 2. there is an upper bound to accurate (edit: precise) weather forecasting the farther you predict into the future Quick, everyone, halt all the research into weather prediction, we've already found all the answers. There's no need…
> You've done nothing but be personal, complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical. You started making personal comments, not me. I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way. It wasn’t my intention. > complaining that it's being returned is hypocritical I was just responding to your complaint about the downvoting.
I really don't think you fully grasp anything at this point in the conversation
> Then I don’t think you fully grasp the nature of weather.
That aged well. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What it means is that it takes more work (Computational Power) to properly model what's happening. The issue isn’t computation. It’s measurement. It’s not possible to measure all of the factors that go into weather it will rain on a Tuesday at 3 pm 3 months from now (sorry for the terrible pun). It’s small perturbations in initial conditions.
You've been wrong about everything else, so why stop there. The models we have are very coarse, and work for 24 hours (kind of, there are still extreme events that are difficult to be accurate about) More sensors are being deployed this very second - which will present a finer grained picture. It's not even at the rocket science part yet
A chaotic system in physics means "a tiny difference in initial conditions leads to large differences in outcome".
You cannot measure precisely enough to make a chaotic system predictable, even if the system is entirely deterministic and you understand all the physics involved.
It doesn't matter how many decimal places of accuracy you have or how many sensors there are, the error in the next decimal place will matter.
Theoretically, I suppose you'd eventually hit quantum effects and the fundamental limits of measurement. But I don't think quantum weather is likely to ever be a thing.
Anyways, the classic chaotic system is a double pendulum. If we can't predict the motion of two sticks, we're not predicting the weather lol.