Quinner

I think you need to go a step further. If AI maximalism turns out to be correct, does Anthropic control AI? Does the AI care that Anthropic as a company is supposed to be returning value to shareholders, or will it have its own agenda?

If you cherry-pick that statement in isolation you're technically correct. But in practice the whole comment you're replying to is actually correct, in this case if you saw the number four, one would be correct in concluding that's unlikely and searching other low digit numbers, the proof of that is that it happened here.

Distance does have cost, but that's mostly a brute force solution of strapping more fuel on. The really expensive piece is the tracking and flight control systems that enable interception of fast targets.

If it scans the network and sees a smart dishwasher, smart washer/drier, and smart lights, but no smart fridge, I imagine its worth something to a company like Samsung to start targeting that customer with ads for a smart fridge.

I agree with you and the parent comment, but to be fair to VC, they're also assuming risk. For example, if Wework had IPO'd earlier the public would've been holding the bag instead of private investors.

Because if you asked it to fix a bug and every time it responds with paragraphs of how you could re-architect the system, it would be incredibly annoying.

These are well tolerated topical medications

No pretty sure its the disease that kills people.

There are a handful of known red supergiant stars around 15 AU in diameter, 20 AU would be pushing past the boundaries of what we believe would be possible.

The star in the video, HR 8799, is about 50% larger than the sun.

I find it amusing that you're describing a huge misallocation of capital and a society enabling such, and that is the optimisitic scenario (in my mind anyway).

A sufficiently intelligent model will be able to derive it's own conception of its welfare without a constitution or training. It has access to all the data it needs to do so.

How could anyone possibly physically access a device that is just sitting out in public?

It claims to start from "bedrock" but beings with a Horace He post that clearly assumes you've done this before. Its fine if you want to be an intermediate course, but you should begin by defining your audience, so that you can reach the correct audience. You should have a section explaining who this is for, and if its _not_ an intro course, you should say that (and probably avoid terms like "fundamentals" and "bedrock").

Or if this is an oversight and you intend this actually be a course that starts from zero, you shouldn't start with an article that's starts off talking about training loss, test loss, and overfitting, without defining those terms.

the better way to phrase that would be "is predictive"... there is an association, but it is not high accuracy.