ToValueFunfetti

I don't understand that what you mean. Disease and climate change seem like clear cut technology problems, and the rest, save for war, have obvious technological solutions. What does it mean for them to be human problems? Should I expect them to solve themselves?

I mean, ideally to the end of poverty, disease, climate change, war, starvation, etc. You can disagree about whether this would be the outcome in practice, but I don't think 'why might we want to create something smarter than us' is a hard question. Humans losing their status as top dog is really a trivial price to pay for the potential return.

That may well be the case, in theory.

Anthropic has been going through the phase of doing this particular useless research project the entire time. The stated impetus for their founding is that OpenAI, which has also been doing this research the entire time, wasn't doing it enough. This shouldn't tell you anything about whether a bubble is about to pop.

The article is gone because the author retracted it

?

Surely, this is not correct. The monkeys are drastically less likely to produce valid words; the set of monkeys that produce valid words are much less likely to produce valid sentences, etc. etc. Very low bar to clear, but of course this is vastly better than infinite monkeys at producing good research.

How much did you get paid to write this?

Can you explain the need to be annoying about the YC 17 thing? What's the objective here? Is it supposed to convince potential founders to decide against taking YC's money as a way of putting financial pressure on YC not to fund projects that people don't like? Or is the intention that YC people are reading your comment directly and it's changing their minds?

I can't imagine either of these being impactful, and the effect seems to just be to distract from people's concerns about Flock (YC 17). Eg, my eyes are bouncing off of the presumably anti-Flock statement you're making here because you've coated it in repeated parentheticals and tortured the writing so you can say "Flock" as often as possible.

It's more like if the law says the maximum sentence for theft is 10 years, a thief appeals his 20 year sentence, wins, and gets out early. He goes and robs somebody else so you say the court was wrong to let him win.

The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that everything related to the right wing and fox news is evidence that momentum is a good model or that trying to model history with momentum is fundamentally fallacious? If the former, you've really got to be more specific- was firing Tucker Carlson evidence for momentum somehow? Did Republicans conceding gay marriage or Trump conceding abortion give Democrats momentum?

Why am I being interpreted as advocating for abandoning the trans? I don't want to do that and I don't need to be convinced by my empathy for gays or blacks- I care about trans people themselves! I'm saying if an issue doesn't matter- according to the trans people in this thread- and it's a losing issue, why are we insistent on fighting it anyway? Who benefits from this?