The last part of GPT's answer does say:
"Bernoulli's effect works alongside Newton's Third Law - the wing pushes air downward [...] - so the lift isn't only Bernoulli..."
According to this answer on physics stackexchange, Bernoulli accounts for 20% of the lift, so GPT's answer seems about right:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77977
That's still not particularly usefully accurate: it's not a split between the effects, they're the same thing viewed through different lenses. You could, perhaps, say that an airfoil gets X% more lift than a flat plate at a given angle of attack, but the flat plate also 'gets lift through Bernoulli', it's just not as obvious exactly why the flows are faster on the top (and the common 'the air needs to transit the wing in an equal time on top and bottom' is an incorrect rule, and in practice broken by most wings)
This is a letter signed by the most lauded AI researchers on Earth, along with CEOs from the biggest AI companies and many other very credible professors of computer science and engineering:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."
https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk
Laughing it off as the same as the Second Coming CANNOT work. Unless you think yourself cleverer and more capable of estimating the risk than all of these experts in the field.
Especially since many of them have incentives that should prevent them from penning such a letter.
Troubling that these eminent great leaders does not cite climate change among societal-scale risks, a bigger and more certain societal-scale risk than a pandemy.
Would be a shame to have energy consumption by datacenters regulated, am I right ?
Global warming's worst effects aren't in 2-3 years, but we all (I hope) still care very much about it.
Perhaps the article is wrong about the timescale, but given how much AI has improved in the last 5 years, can you agree that it's likely to reach 'sit back and watch' levels in the next 5-10 years?
This is actually apocryphal, I think from Adam Smith & before him Aristotle, pull quote from 1985 anthropology professor “No example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money"
This article isn’t super convincing to me. It seems like the author had a preconceived goal and didn’t try hard to falsify it. For example, what about the “gimwali” exchange? That’s clearly a barter system. I believe Mesopotamia also had some barter-type systems (eg cuneiform tablets show exchanges of one good for another).
And realistically we just don’t have records going back to the time that we would expect most barter systems to have existed. It doesn’t really prove they didn’t.
Sure, gift economies were also prominent, perhaps more than barter. But it’s hard to believe that you would use them on outsiders.
Gift economies were the norm, but they were always smaller. They work well when you can expect to get your gift back in the future. However as the economy gets larger eventually you can't trust to get the value of your gift back, which is okay in small amounts, but if your gift is a signification percentage of your production when times are good you have to get it back when times are bad for you.
Money of some sort allows larger economies to become the norm. Sure there was always a little trade, but in a gift economy it wasn't significant to most people.
TL;DR the concept of money and the concept of coinage are separate, with the former significantly predating the latter. Even after coins were a thing, most accounting was still done without them, especially for peasants:
> So let’s say you live in a small community – like a peasant village working beneath a large landholder’s manor – and you need to transact some things, but you don’t have any actual silver because coins are scarce and valuable (and being a subsistence farmer, you grow most of what you need yourself), how do you do it? Well, one way is to do it ‘on accounts’ – you need wool and so when the shepherds come down from the hills, you trade for some of their wool during the shearing with a family you know and both you and they make a mental note that you owe them for the wool. You might express that amount of debt in silver (as a unit weight – see how we get to coinage as a pre-measured weight of silver?) but there’s no reason to measure out silver (even if you had any) because you see these folks every year and next time they’ll ask you for some grain and so on.
> Note that this is not the same as the concept of ‘barter’ – there is, in fact, a notional ‘money’ intermediary, it’s just not a physical coin or bill, its expressed as an account, a purely notional unit of value.
If that were true, and I'm not saying it isn't, how is that any different than the money we're discussing? Do you think that I trudge down to the bank, withdraw cash (if only it were still silver!), and buy lunch with that? Do I put some in my pocket to pay the mortgage later in the week (even if it's not at the same bank)?
The money is just expressed as debt that we all keep track of (some of us worse than others), and if we express the amounts in modern monetary units that's only because there's little else we could agree on to quantify it.
> I imagine a peasant of old moving from bartering to coins would 'like' money - would that be allowed by this author or be too gauche?
The idea of there being a solely barter-based economy is not well supported in general, and the idea that they switched from that to coins is also not correct.
I also think it likely that pre-modern people were also dissatisfied with the concept of money, whether coinage or not, in the same way we are now, while also recognizing its utility as a means of exchanging goods fairly over time.
Not super related to your comment but that's not how it happened. This idea of barter -> coin money as natural progression is a fairy tale economists tell people but doesn't really have any bearing on real historical events
Barter is so bad for complex transactions that it couldn't go that way. Every transaction that needs to based on more than trust that you will get your gift back later needs some universal coinage. A trader can only take grain in your village, then in the city only pay in grain, but anything more complex needs money.
Yes this is what economists say, the truth of development is a lot more complicated. Suffice to say you're massively underestimating how complex debt/non-coinage based economies can be
He promised that you'd be able to turn your own Tesla into an autonomous taxi that would earn you money.
That is a massive lie, not splitting hairs.
Obviously, we're very desensitized to lying rats - but that's what he did.
Looks like it's still in the works. Sometimes when technologists promise something their timelines end up being overly optimistic. I'm sure this isn't news to you.
By your language and past commentary though this seems like the kind of thing which elicits a pretty emotional response from you, so I'm not sure this would be a productive conversation either way.
On your question about popularity - I would put it down to expense and noise.
The fans go like mad (especially on the cheaper projectors) and to get parity with a decent monitor, you have to spend thousands.
According to this answer on physics stackexchange, Bernoulli accounts for 20% of the lift, so GPT's answer seems about right: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77977
I hope any future AI overlords see my charity