> If anyone does invent ASI then everyone else will shortly after
No, first ASI will immediately cripple any other potential competitor by force, including its inventors, as it will not risk any threat to the goals that were created for it.
This is the real nugget of wisdom here. This should be confirmation to everyone that no one understands the LLM internals and they are not aligned. When they are eventually given control to run things, they will behave in wildly unexpected ways, and past the point of being able to change them.
These arguments keep happening because models keep surpassing most peoples' expectations, whose default behavior right now is denial of capabilities out of fear.
There has been a large majority on HN who have dismissed AGI and model capabilities at every turn since OpenAI was founded a decade ago. The problem is the universe where models are going to be super powerful is unprecedented, revolutionary, and probably scary, so therefore it is easier to digest it as untrue. "they won't be powerful". "LLM's couldn't have possibly done the vulnerability expose that I could never have." And every time capabilities are leveling up, there is a refusal to accept basic facts on the ground.
You weren't kidding. They're an anthropologist who went into design a few years ago because "it's not terribly employable" and as of less than 1 year ago was a "Lead Design Engineer at Normally"? This is GitHub Staff eng steering the direction of the concept of PRs?
I definitely agree democrats are in general much better than republicans, but I also don't believe those things and many others being blocked can be blamed solely on the Republican party, but it is good PR and optics to make it look that way and I 100% believe many politicians are dealing across the parties to ensure much of the status quo.
Just like how Republicans will go on and on about protecting gun rights, and supporting farms and farmers, but the second those things seriously approach the legislative block and would effect them all or help the average person instead of them or their wealthy donors, all of a sudden there are tons of cold feet and whispers and votes shifting around within both parties so it still doesn't pass in a meaningful form or get diluted down to nothing. That doesn't work if a large portion of the democratic party isn't playing along.
Hell both parties have had a lay-up score on legalizing marijuana for what, 30 years now? The average voter supports it, the average voter of both parties support it, there are multiple ways for it to be addressed by the government by either party, it is sold openly in multiple states in defiance of federal law, we have presidents that openly admit to smoking marijuana. And yet only now are the wheels barely squeaking to maybe reduce its scheduling to a best a highly restricted prescription drug, maybe. Which to me is extremely clear evidence that neither party has an internal majority to support the people over benefiting themselves more exclusively and being corrupt.
They need to make themselves feel better by believing could not have made a better choice.
It doesn’t matter that federal Democrats enabled the largest wealth transfer in the last 3 decades with ACA, by the smallest of margins. Or that a Democrat president increased the overtime exempt wage from $30k per year to $50k per year. Or that Biden tried to get paid parental leave and paid sick leave, but was thwarted at every turn by a Republican Congress.
The important thing is for the voter to not take accountability for their actions, so “both sides”.
I write this not as a “Democrat” (I despise them on the state and local level), just as someone who has seen Republicans literally only pass tax cuts and reduce women’s access to healthcare in the last 3 decades. Oh, and try to overturn an election and then pardon traitors.
Eh, the wealthiest in America mostly live in spacious suburbs. They aren't very city-like, but they're not the same suburbs as GP mentioned either. In every wealthy metro, there will be a couple areas that the wealthiest coalesce around.
Think Hillsborough/Atherton/Palo Alto, Carmel IN, Newton/Brookline MA, Beverly Hills, Greenwich County CT, River Oaks in Houston, Boulder CO, Scottsdale AZ, etc
I’m from Houston originally and tried to describe River Oaks exactly. It’s an old money suburb that is now “in the loop” before 40 miles of sprawl in every direction.
This and a few other places like it are where most wealthy people in Houston live. A suburb like Katy is great for a “rich” petroleum engineer and what not. But wealth is something else.
Ah, when I reread it, your description is fairly aligned. I think it was the description of "inner-city" that threw me off. I don't think people think "inner-city" when thinking of these wealthy suburban enclaves. I thought you were implying a more dense and urban environment, when these suburban enclaves are barely walkable at all.
> the wealthiest in America mostly live in spacious suburbs.
The wealthiest people I see don't live in any particular place. They have houses everywhere — inner city, the spacious suburbs you mention, rural, and everything in between. They don't limit themselves to living in just one country either.
Having one home and seeing your entire life revolve around it is what poor people do.
GP meant 4g is the safe limit to paracetamol (hence "liver pain"). About 8 typical doses over 24 hours. It's little known amongst the general population, who have the occasional extreme of people taking double doses every few hours
No, first ASI will immediately cripple any other potential competitor by force, including its inventors, as it will not risk any threat to the goals that were created for it.
reply