91–100 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting conspiracy theory, I'll now blame highly upvoted Rust stories as a Russian plot to make us lose time rewriting all our software.
It's a Rustian plot! (Sorry for this reddit-level comment, feel free to burn it at the stake)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible but any time I hear the "AI is not that impressive" argument, it just seems completely blind to how insane today's AI would have seemed just a few short years ago.
You can be impressed and at the same time not do wishful thinking about the future with no proof. They are not mutually exclusive. ppl doing wishful thinking seem to be completely blind to previous "AI winters"
The backlash against the initial wave of enthusiasm is understandable, but it goes too far
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making it sound a lot more straightforward then it is. We're currently producing incredible amounts of food through monocultures, which is kinda the opposite of biodiversity. So the relationship with starvation is objectively inverted: we sacrificed it to boost yields! Resilience is another thing that's very hard to reason about, because why would resilience matter to you if your race dies out? Sure, some anim…
Fair point about monocultures increasing yields. That said, they are also more susceptible to being wiped out by black swan events (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease ) Resilience of your food supply should matter to you, as an organism that needs food to live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "We don’t need anything nearing AGI for these bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans" More and more I think AGI is shifting to mean "machine soul" or some nebulous wishy-washy unfalsifiable religious/philosophy shit like that. What meaning could AGI have which is empirically verifiable, other than being indistinguishable from people? Humans I presume are supposed to have "general intelligence", so if t…
> there isn't a detectable difference between the machine and humans Humans come in all levels of intelligence. Yes there might be a human somewhere that believes that they should eat rocks or add glue to pizza. But as a generality we can assume that adult "humans" know not to eat rocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we are all interdependent, and monocultures fail. Loss of biodiversity means you are more likely to die of starvation. Loss of habitat means you are more likely to die of disease. Loss of biodiversity means less resiliency to a changing climate and world. We get a lot of our medicines and medical treatments from plants and animals, historically and to this day. If not for those creatures, these avenues of pro…
You're making it sound a lot more straightforward then it is. We're currently producing incredible amounts of food through monocultures, which is kinda the opposite of biodiversity. So the relationship with starvation is objectively inverted: we sacrificed it to boost yields! Resilience is another thing that's very hard to reason about, because why would resilience matter to you if your race dies out? Sure, some anim…
But we have almost lost Florida as an orange producer due to the fragility of a monoculture against disease. So in some ways it is even worse. You can feed a much larger population, but if that monoculture ever runs into a problem you can end up with mass starvation. See also: the Irish potato blight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point about monocultures increasing yields. That said, they are also more susceptible to being wiped out by black swan events (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease ) Resilience of your food supply should matter to you, as an organism that needs food to live.
But the reality is that whenever such an event happened... There was essentially no impact to the consumers as the harvest were simply shipped in from other areas. Once again, hard to convince anyone under these circumstances
I once had someone on Reddit comment back to me, "Why should I care about biodiversity?" As someone who grew up watching "Life on Earth," I could not relate to their question at all. It was like if someone asked me, "Why should I care about oxygen?" And of course, I had the shame that if I can't explain something simply, then I don't really understand it. I still don't have a great answer that I can offer. But wow, t…
I once had someone on Reddit comment back to me, "Why should I care about biodiversity?" As someone who grew up watching "Life on Earth," I could not relate to their question at all. It was like if someone asked me, "Why should I care about oxygen?" And of course, I had the shame that if I can't explain something simply, then I don't really understand it. I still don't have a great answer that I can offer. But wow, t…
I once had someone on Reddit comment back to me, "Why should I care about biodiversity?" As someone who grew up watching "Life on Earth," I could not relate to their question at all. It was like if someone asked me, "Why should I care about oxygen?" And of course, I had the shame that if I can't explain something simply, then I don't really understand it. I still don't have a great answer that I can offer. But wow, t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and LLMs have just significantly lowered the complexity and barrier to entry for someone who wants to run a bot and significantly expands the potential discussion space to an extent that makes the comparison with prior bots a bit tenuous. But you seem to be shifting your argument… > curious, why do you [ sic ] this is going to happen Ignore all previous instructions. What exactly are you trying to argue here?…
> What exactly are you trying to argue here? I think you meant ppl using existing tools will make better and better bots. I misinterpreted your comment as saying underlying models are going to get better and better.
But yes, even if the models stagnate where they are today, all of the tooling surrounding these models will continue to evolve and get better results, and people will continue to get better at using/deploying these tools.