If that construction was part of a broader concentration of capital in the top 0.1% of society that was then deploying that capital to buy up as much real estate as possible, then yes.
They said "pawed at", which is a phrase for an inelegant bumbling interaction with something. It is not literal. And they also said "like retarded monkeys", not that they are retarded monkeys.
I’m really surprised you’d need 600 million to run this company. Like why not start with one farm in the tens of millions of dollars range and run that profitably first? VCs would save a lot of money.
The issue is that you often want to work around bugs in a browser. For instance, Safari technically supports a lot of features, but very often there are slight inconsistencies with other browsers. Would Safari’s capability be something like “capture-stream-with-bugs”?
> When you need to support a claim, it can be tempting to support it with a statement from an authority figure. But if done improperly, this could be a logical fallacy—the appeal to authority fallacy.
The key words are: “if done improperly, this could be…” The article goes on the give non-fallacious examples of an appeal to authority. The quality of an implantation will be correlated to experience, so this is an example of a non-fallacious appeal to authority.
Just curious: Imagine two people took the 1Password white paper and created two separate implementations. The only information you have on the two implementations is the background of the people who implemented them. One is a first year CS student; the other is a seasoned security researcher with multiple published vulnerability discoveries. Which would you choose and why?
> I think what's interesting is that many types of creativity may really just be re-synthesizing "stuff we already know."
This is obviously true, and yet we've invented so many things. From the wheel, to control of fire, to farming and animal husbandry, to mathematics, to metallurgy, to physics, to semiconductors, etc.
The interesting question is, was the invention of all those things simply the re-synthesis of "stuff we already know?" If the answer is yes, doesn't that mean we're now on the cusp of a something akin to a singularity? We can now synthesize nearly-unlimited streams of coherent human thought. If we had a way of differentiating the wheat from the chaff, we could analyze what would have been millennia of human output in the proverbial blink of an eye. If human knowledge is just "stuff we already know", then we better buckle up. It's about to be a wild ride.
> If we had a way of differentiating the wheat from the chaff
This is the key to AGI. We need verification systems, they can be a code execution environment, a database of facts, a math symbolic engine, a physical simulation, a game, or real world lab experiments. These verifiers will produce signal that can be used by the language models to improve. The cheaper and faster verification is, the faster we can iterate. Generating ideas is cheap, proof matters.
Just remember AlphaZero a bit - it started from scratch, playing against itself, in a few hours it surpassed human level. Go simulation and verification is trivial. The board is just a matrix. So learning from massive search and verification is a proven path to super-human level.
Proof definitely matters. But at this point, as ChatGPT, AlphaZero, and others demonstrate, NNs can solve any problem provided you can express the problem as a differentiable function and get enough training data to train the function. We may be very close to a breakthrough where we can train models that detect sound, good ideas. And 100% accuracy likely isn’t necessary. Even pruning the search space for good ideas by a large amount would make humans way more productive.
Tissue damage, infection, foreign matter, etc are all bad. Inflation might help, but I think you’d need to show it’d be helpful without the presence of some worse thing to truly call it beneficial.
I’m not conflating anything. You’re saying the inflammation is beneficial, but what you’re describing is really a “lesser of two evils” situation, e.g. it’s better to have inflammation than it is to bleed out from a wound. But the best thing would be not to get a wound in the first place.
Interestingly, many of those studies are about the beneficial anti-arthritic impact of consuming Solanum nigrum. That kind of contradicts the “avoid nightshade” advice.
