It certainly was an investment for us to meet the security and enterprise-readiness criteria for our enterprise users. As an n of 1, we don't tend to do on-prem, and even much of the most skeptical companies will find a way to use cloud if they want your product enough.
I think most large companies have similar expectations around security requirements, so once those are resolved most IT teams are on your side. We occasionally do some specific things like allowing our product to be run in a VPC on the customer cloud, but I imagine this is just what most enterprise-facing companies do.
I actually thought the opposite - that he seems to be seriously thinking about AGI from a broader intellectual standpoint than most ML researchers. With that said, I was a little confused when he said evolution was more optimized for locomotion/vision than language. Like yes, language is super recent, but communication in general is not.
Yup, Dwarkesh needs to broaden his intellectual scope, and the Sutton interview completely exposed the echo chamber he's been inhabiting. There is no certainty in science, and I don't think building 'AGI' will be any exception.
Why? I don't recall hearing of any airline pilot who felt insulted by an Autopilot, or a cleaner insulted by a Roomba. People who see parts of their jobs replaced often have a range of feelings, but I don't see why insult would be one of them.
But there is no way to know who is truly the 'best'. The people who position and market themselves to be viewed as the best are the only ones who even have a chance to be viewed as such. So if you're a great researcher but don't project yourself that way, no one will ever know you're a great researcher (except for the other great researchers who aren't really invested in communicating how great you are). The system seems to incentivize people to not only optimize for their output but also their image. This isn't a bad thing per se, but is sort of antithetical to the whole shoulder of giants ethos of science.
The problem is that the best research is not a competitive process but a collaborative one. Positioning research output as a race or a competition is already problematic.
right. Also, the idea that there is a "best" researcher is already problematic. You could have 10 great people in a team, and it would be hard to rank them. Rating people in order of performance in a team is contradictory to the idea of building a great team. ie, you could have 10 people all rated 10 which is really the goal when building a team.
My practical interpretation of the EMH is more that easily accessible, public information is already priced in. But non-obvious insights may not be simply because the volume of people trading on that information will be smaller.
The answer stems from McCarthy’s deeply disparaging view of modern society, which he considered lost, divorced from nature, history and tradition and heading toward social collapse and apocalypse. “Cormac considered contemporary fiction a waste of time,” said Dennis, “because contemporary writers no longer have a legitimate culture to feed their souls.”
reply