fasthands9

I do think Apple needs a better Siri, but I think ultimately they were smart not to plow tons of money into it trying to do it themselves.

A better Siri is an expense to keep up the premium brand, not something that they will monetize. For particular uses of AI people will just want particular apps.

Fun idea.

The memes are very funny, but I also am unsure what to make of it. Is the "unusually busy" feature mean like once a year business or one out of every ten days?

I am not bearish on AI by any means, but don't really get why Apple needs the best AI in-house other than to improve Siri. That doesn't take 500B.

As long as you can download apps and set permissions for communication between apps/devices, then it seems like 3rd party developers will make Apple devices more valuable for them.

I definitely read less than I used to. I think in the past some books didn't need to be the length they are. I still like narrative non-fiction and for those the level of detail is the point.

It is harder to get back into reading, but think if you force yourself a little at first your brain gets "rewired" back to it just fine.

>The provision was squeezed into the bill, nicknamed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” in May. It is designed to prohibit states from “[enforcing] any law or regulation regulating [AI] models, [AI] systems, or automated decision systems” for a decade.

I still am a bit confused by this. States require certain tasks be done by license, like writing prescriptions or having a degree to teach in public schools. It seems like licensing rules like that could still be passed?

Though still makes me nervous. I admit I would like some type of safety inspection of the top labs, even though that sounds heavy handed. I just feel like it would be good for making them dedicate a minimum amount of resources to safety.

I think this is mostly right, but also I'm not sure I agree completely with the premise. Humans have years of conversations they've heard before they attempt to read or write. They already have a concept of what a 'dog' is before they see the word, and know what it is likely to do. Not the same with something that only sees text.

If anything I imagine law and cases to get more complex. Less lawyers may be needed for any one case, but that should just make it more possible for lawsuits for smaller amounts of damages to be brought.

The blog post brings up the Daniel Penny trial. That trial took six weeks, even though it was on video. I imagine criminal cases have gotten longer and more complex now, because each case has more potential information than it ever did.

This is my favorite type of art.

It is interesting. My two theories would be a) people at top schools follow these meta-discussions more and are therefore are more likely to be ahead of trend b) someone who could do comp-sci at Stanford could easily become something like a doctor, but at small schools there's not an obvious second option that's also high earning.

I've long thought that if AI can start solving unsolved math problems we are in for a very weird (or bad) future, since at that point it really can come up with things that no one has thought of before. And perhaps, it would also be able to find new physics or new physical mechanisms very fast.

That said, it sounds like teams are guiding the areas of exploration pretty directly. If I was more cynical, I'd say that Google has a lot of financial incentive to claim it was integral to any breakthroughs the team comes up with.

I'm not anti self-driving cars in general, but I do think as they get more popular they should be taxed extra for every mile they drive without a person (or at least without cargo).

A self-driving car may decide to drive around an empty street in a city instead of find parking, because it's cheaper, but its a negative externality.

Yeah. For understandable reasons that is covered a lot too, but AI 2027 is really about the risk of self-replicating AI. Is an AI virus possible, and could it be easily stopped by humans and our military?

I feel like that's true for most economic things but is that necessarily the case for things such as computation?

For instance, my understanding is that computers have been getting exponentially faster for 70 years.

I realize the thing they are modeling (intelligence?) is a bit hard to define so I hope/think they are wrong. But I'm not sure how to be so certain.

I do agree generally with this, but AI 2027 and other writings have moved my concern from 0% to 10%.

I know I sound crazy writing it out, but many of the really bad scenarios don't require consciousness or anything like that. It just requires they be self-replicating and the ability to operate without humans shutting them off.

There is an element that when it becomes cheaper/easier it cancels each other out. Spam became cheaper/easier but that just meant people were less trusting of random emails.

It probably is true that some populations are more vulnerable to AI produced propaganda/slop, but ultimately I have 50 more pressing AI concerns.