coderenegade

I think what the OP is getting at is that if you can only prompt the model and aren't bringing anything to the table yourself, you're going to get a generic answer that looks like all of the others. The point is to figure out what differentiates you as a developer. Yes, that will favor those with more experience, but that's always been the case.

But pure math is a game that only cares about the rules and definitions as you choose to define them. It's not about understanding the world at all. The application of math in science (which is about understanding the world) is usually (but admittedly not always) after the fact.

Thank you. The OP is urging others to take an ethics class, when they need to be taking a history class. The golden rule apparently didn't apply to the guy whose heart you had to eat to keep the sun rising.

Right, and that's the point.

The law isn't a moral benchmark, because morality shifts over time, both for what constitutes a crime, and what constitutes appropriate punishment. At various points in time, it's been legal to own slaves, illegal to be homosexual, and illegal for certain groups to vote (and I consider voting at all to be a subset of this); those laws (and ideas) were eventually updated, largely on moral grounds.

Similarly, most western countries no longer execute criminals.

But those ideas aren't universal, even today. Assuming that they are is imo, extraordinarily foolish, because there's ample evidence to show that they're not.

Who the consensus extends to is really the heart of the matter. Most people agree that killing certain people is wrong, but if they disagree on who those certain people are, there's no useful commonality. Some people believe that all killing of others is wrong, some believe that it's okay to kill others under certain circumstances (which can range from a threat to one's life, to petty "dishonor"), and some people historically believed that killing was a necessary duty (e.g. human sacrifice). There is no useful commonality to be had there. You can't appeal to the humanity of someone who doesn't see you as being the same as them, and the restrictions for inclusion as one of them can be arbitrary, broad, and fickle.

By definition, variation is the opposite of consensus.

The law isn't and never has been a moral benchmark. At best, a law reflects social consensus at the time of its enactment, but even that's not a given.

And proportionality matters. Community service and counseling, loss of time (imprisonment), and loss of a hand have all been used to punish theft. Which is correct? Which is the more moral, because it doesn't seem to me that they're the same?

Hogwash. We don't even have a consistent set of ethics on how to treat animals today, in the age of the Internet. We have people who refuse to eat meat because of how the animals are treated, and we have places where the locals make sport out of torturing animals to death, and indeed, our own recent history includes that as well (look up badgering).

Not to mention, the variation in treatment of homosexuals (including what constitutes homosexuality), people of different skin colors, handedness, how rape is treated in various cultures (often tied in with notions of property and ownership of all things), or even the various definitions of rape... The list goes on.

Maybe there's a core there in terms of how we treat a given in-group, but equally important is who belongs in that group and why, and that part seems to be tremendously flexible. Ditto for what constitutes acceptable treatment of outsiders.

My bad. I skimmed the early part of the video with the sound down on the train this morning and thought I saw a servo in there. That's clever, but it doesn't really change much. There's not really any advantage in terms of payload or performance over existing designs.

This design still requires an additional servo for rotor actuation, so the minimum number of actuators is the same as for a fixed wing (roll and yaw are coupled, so the bare minimum is a single rudder servo).

A fixed wing drone only needs one motor, the control is easier, and the physics are more favorable for carrying high ordnance. I'm skeptical that this is going to change much.

It's cool in that it can hover and do quadcopter type flight with only a single motor, and it's that second part that is interesting, because a fixed wing can also do a prop hang, but it can't do quadrotor-like flight from there.

It's usefulness is likely to be in other areas -- mainly applications where that flight mode is important.

A good engineering course would cover most (if not all) of the skills necessary to do this. This is notable because the person is young and wielding a broad slice of the discipline with maturity.

What exactly would you want to regulate? And keep in mind that regulations are very effective at protecting incumbents, which, as of right now, also includes openAI.

This is a track car for the uber wealthy. It's only rarely going to be on public roads, and it'll probably have some unlock mechanism for the truly stupid stuff. Honestly, I'm here for it. Automakers have gotten complacent. Between Chinese automakers and stunts like this, we might see the return of outrageous engineering just to prove a point.

I'm not even an EV guy, and this is the coolest thing to come out of the automotive space in years. This is almost a throwback to the homologation days of rallying, when automotive companies sold unchained racing cars to the general public because the FIA and WRC deemed it so. Impractical cars in every sense of the word, but phenomenal engineering.

It should also be said that "can't differentiate a function" is a pretty high bar for Monte Carlo methods, which will still give you a gradient for un-differentiable functions.