AI currently lacks the following to really gain a "G" and reliably be able to replace humans at scale:

- Radical massive multimodality. We perceive the world through many wide-band high-def channels of information. Computer perception is nowhere near. Same for ability to "mutate" the physical world, not just "read" it.

- Being able to be fine-tuned constantly (learn things, remember things) without "collapsing". Generally having a smooth transition between the context window and the weights, rather than fundamental irreconcilable difference.

These are very difficult problems. But I agree with the author that the engine is in the works and the horses should stay vigilant.

> Whenever I join a new project, within 6 months, I control/maintain all the core modules of the system and everything ends up hooked up to my config files, running according to the architecture I designed. Happened at multiple companies

I am regularly tempted to do this (I have done this a few times), but unless I truly own the project (being the tech lead or something), I stop myself. One of the reasons is reluctance to trespass uninvited on someone's else territory of responsibility, even if they do a worse job than I could. The human cost of such a situation (to the project and ultimately to myself) is usually worse than the cost of living with status quo. I wonder what your thoughts are on this.

Obsidian is nothing less than a complete IDE for text.

This reminds me that Scott Meyers (IMO rightfully) considered the destructor as the single most important fearure in C++.

I too enjoy space leaks on recursion

I suspect that when you install the app, it will require all the juicy permissions like contacts, and hoover up lots of data before you even begin to use it. So the damage will have been done, even though you uninstall it soon.

Hasn't the establishment been non-conservatuve at least half of the time for the past 20 years?

In which countries? Most have major parties that are conservative and conservative-light.

<quote>

ALL individuals (both youth and adults) should meet and/or exceed the following:

150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, OR;

75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, AND;

Resistance training of moderate or greater intensity involving all major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week

</quote>

This boolean expression needs some parentheses...

Different countries may have different ideas about the balance you've mentioned. One country should not impose its version on another (with threats of jail time). This is what the discussion is about.

> It's weird how it's not considered a basic human right to be able travel to where you want, and even live where you want as long as you can support yourself and comply with the local laws and customs

The "as long as you can" is exactly the reason. There is no way to ensure the travelers or migrants can (and want) to do that, if you don't have a border.

Really? If I go to another country and commit a crime they can't enforce their laws on me unless they stop me at the border? I don't see how stopping me at the border stops me from committing a crime when I get past it or stops the country from enforcing their laws when I am caught. What did the border magically do to change enforcement?

How would the absence of strictly enforced borders help this particular situation?

Who/what would defend a website in one place from stupidity in another place, were it not an enforced border between these places?

Or do you imply that the stupidity would not arise anywhere, if there were no borders?