So many ideas involving AI just seems to be built off of sci-fi (not in a good way), including this one. Like sci-fi, there are little practical considerations made.
Sci-fi isn't even really about the tech. It's about what happens to us, humans, when the tech changes in dramatic ways. Sci-fi authors dream up types of technology that create new social orders, factions, rifts, types of interpersonal relationships, types of fascism, where the unforseen consequences of human ingenuity hoist us upon our collective petard.
But these baffoons only see the blinky shiney and completely miss the point of the stories. They have a child's view of SF the way that men in their teens and 20d thought they were supposed to be like Tyler Durden.
This is a good point and is why I prefer to refer to the genre as Speculative Fiction - not only is it broader but it better gets at the idea behind this type of fiction. Not just space lasers.
What? Fundamentally, information can only be so dense. Current models may be inefficient w.r.t. information density, however, there is a lower bound of compute required. As a pathological example, we shouldn't expect a megabyte worth of parameters to be able to encode the entirety of Wikipedia.
I thought recycle was the breaking down of the device into its constituents (mostly to recover precious metals or other base materials). In contrast, reuse is where the device is kept mostly intact and used for other purposes such as this. Just breaking things down requires considerable amounts of energy through the sheer logistics of it relative to just reusing it.
There is quite a bit of room between reusing something for its intended purpose and recycling something at the material level. TFA is at neither extreme - the phone is kept intact but it's employed for a much more limited purpose that only really uses some of the phone's components.
It might make more sense to think of in terms of expected value. Whilst the probability may be low, the payoff is probably many times the $250M if their startup becomes successful.
That's measuring desirability--or at least immediate desirability, which is sometimes related but distinct from wealth.
It also quickly becomes meaningless as people risking life and limb tend to flee to the nearest stable country. For example, Syrian refugees for the most part tended to stay close to their home country with the majority fleeing to nearby Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq--or, moving elsewhere within Syria.
Measuring wealth of a country by measuring how many refugees it takes in is like projecting future revenue/success of a convenience store by measuring how many people come into the store during an active-shooter situation.
Going by your metric, it would suggest that a Pole is wealthier than a Brit because Poland has nearly 1 million Ukrainian refugees to the UK's .25 mil.
A similar argument could be made for any safety feature that adds cost to vehicles--literally, all of them. If a death is preventable and adds on a relatively inconsequential amount to the cost of a vehicle, then it is the morally correct choice optimize for safety.
The logic doesn’t scale. You can’t impose arbitrary and subjectives thresholds to gloss over this fact. The obvious conclusion is that safety is one of many moral factors to balance.
We still need people on the ground reporting on these things. AI can't (yet) have connections and conversations with relevant parties. Many interviews would not be possible without a reporter developing a rapport with the interviewee beforehand.
How do you define what is needed? The vast majority of reporting does not affect one's own behaviour at all. For example, consider the Snowden leaks, I guarantee you the vast majority of people did not even attempt to modify their own behaviour at all in light of this new information--despite having read or heard about it.
I'd argue that this reporting was still needed, despite it having very little material impact on one's life.
Almost all news has very little material impact on one's life which is why it is treated as entertainment when targeting consumers. The Snowden leaks was an entertaining story that would be easily monetizable.
Just ask any person who works in teaching or any of the numerous faulty AI detectors (they're all faulty).
Any current technology which can used to accurately detect pre-AI content would necessarily imply that that same technology could be used to train an AI to generate content that could skirt by the AI detector. Sure, there is going to be a lag time, but eventually we will run out of non-AI content.
We do not want manufacturing jobs, they suck. America has an amazing thing going on where we can trade 1s and 0s in exchange for physical goods. We have an infinite renewable resource which costs nearly nothing to reproduce infinitely. We have a defacto monopoly on technology and digital services.
I understand the national security reasons for having a domestic commercial manufacturing base. However, there is ZERO economic reasons to bring back manufacturing jobs.
I hear this repeated, “we don’t want manufacturing jobs, they suck”.
I work in manufacturing, and my job definitely does NOT suck!
That short sighted western leadership were so eager to ship off manufacturing jobs to China has been a disaster for the west. I can’t be the only one who sees this?
> That short sighted western leadership were so eager to ship off manufacturing jobs to China has been a disaster for the west.
In what way are you quantifying this? Would you agree that the quality of life has improved significantly compared to the 1980s or whatever period you want to compare to?
For many people, sure. I can always find exceptions to the rule. I am talking statistically. Fact of the matter is, the bottom 20% QoL has improved significantly, correct?
Frankly looking at many indicators it would seem large chunks of the US is doing terrible, not just the bottom 20%.
You now have enormous piles of debt, obesity, millions hooked on drugs, a blossoming private prison industry and a nation without a future?
I quote from Wikipedia:
‘In 2013, George Friedman, the head of Stratfor, wrote that the middle class' standard of living was declining, and that "If we move to a system where half of the country is either stagnant or losing ground while the other half is surging, the social fabric of the United States is at risk, and with it the massive global power the United States has accumulated."[54]’
Sure, but most of that has nothing to do with the loss of manufacturing jobs. It has much more to do with the tremendous transfer of wealth from the bottom quintiles to the top, enabled by the gutting of unions, the destruction of regulations, and the abandonment of any kind of effective antitrust policy.
Some, yes, but the cause and effect are somewhat blurred because both were happening over a long period of time. They each contributed to each other in a feedback loop, and I don't claim to be enough of a scholar of that period to know for sure which one started first.
If you were serious about improving the lives of normal people you would be voting for Bernie Sanders. Not the party handing out tax cuts for the rich, that is against the minimum wage and destroyed the pension system.
> For many people, sure. I can always find exceptions to the rule. I am talking statistically. Fact of the matter is, the bottom 20% QoL has improved significantly, correct?
That's really a decision each person should make for themselves, and it was a big part of the reason Trump won the election. Most people don't think their QoL has improved.
Obviously the perspective here is different due to the success of the US software industry, but that industry only employs a tiny fraction of the population.
So the idea is to destroy 75% of the economy that is the service/tech economy? I'm sure that will work out well for all of us. He could have had more pro business, less regulations, trade agreements, but he didn't he just set the house on fire and wants to see what he can make out of the ashes. I guess we can all get jobs in construction to build the newest 3rd world nation on the world playing field?
The exception, of course, are the poor and lower working class who have no technical expertise or training, or would be unable to learn same... for those individuals the prospect of a manufacturing job is a step-up.
The types of manufacturing jobs which would be a step up would be high-tech and high gross-margins manufacturing (which we already do), not whatever crap China is producing. If you want the quality of life of a Chinese manufacturing worker - which is still much worse than that of a retail worker in America - sure. There is no basis in reality that the kind of jobs Chinese manufacturers would yield a higher quality of life for a blue collar worker.
Furthermore, those kinds of jobs are not long for this world. They're inevitably going to be automated away and the replacement jobs robotics maintainers are not ever going to be in numbers great enough to replace those manufacturing jobs. It's beyond stupid especially when you consider that the labor market was already incredibly strong at ~5% unemployment.
I keep hearing this BS, but unskilled manufacturing jobs are a downgrade from unskilled service jobs, and if official statistics aren’t lying, there’s been a growing shortage of unskilled labor in service. Expecting people without a skill and can’t even bother to flip burgers to want to do heavy labor in factories is ridiculous.
Depends very much on the assembly line. Some are quite reasonable, especially in smaller firms where you don't have a completely detached management in their ivory tower passing efficiency edicts for grinding through disposable anonymous minions. You can't abuse your staff too much if you have to sit next to them in the canteen! It's not exactly stimulating work and obviously not a rockstar salary, but it's comfortable enough indoor work and you don't have to pee in bottles and have a psychopathic delivery schedule every day.
>We have an infinite renewable resource which costs nearly nothing to reproduce infinitely. We have a defacto monopoly on technology and digital services.
That doesn't work for ever. And Trump was voted by the blue collars. So he wants to create more blue collar jobs.
For whatever reason, people did not believe Trump would be this crazy. In fact, people in the stock market still do not believe he is this crazy. If they did, the stock market would drop much lower. From what I've heard from people in finance, the bond market is indicating some economic growth this year. If this goes on, expect a financial crisis which rivals that of the Great Depression.
It's not a lack of foresight, it's just that they do not believe him or believe that someone will stop him. People have just misread Donald Trump and his intentions.
To be fair, he said he would do all this crazy stuff the first time but didn't. So there's some evidence for the position that he wouldn't do crazy stuff.
Also, it's hard for people to understand that someone in power might just not understand why their decisions are a terrible, terrible idea (see politicians and backdooring encryption for a tech example of this).
He didn't do those things, or he couldn't? Not too familiar with American politics, but AIUI his majority was much weaker last time round, possibly resulting in some of his crazy being kept under control?
Yes the latest Goldman Sachs recession forecast is 45% probability, which is what makes it into the headlines.
However the report says this is assuming the tariffs won't go into effect. The flagship policy Trump just announced after going on about how the most beautiful word is "tariff" for four decades.
If they go into effect it goes higher. But why assume that the President of the USA will actually do what he just said he'd do in a big speech with giant printed props.
