krisoft

> That is completely false. PTC does that, and we've had it for several decades.

I think you are misunderstanding the sentence you quoted.

It says something about the safety of self-driving cars. That is they don’t meet the standards required for railways. In other words the expected safety for a self-driving CAR is lower than the expected safety of a RAILWAY. (Caps for emphasis, sorry about the shouting.)

Your comment reads as if the quote claims that we cannot make “self-driving trains”. It does not say that.

> You keep pretending that avoiding train collisions is too magical to achieve with current tech

I don’t think that they do that. Definietly not in the comment you responded to.

> what would I do if this is my first 3D printer

Resin printers are very special type of printers. They are great at some things (tiny intricate details, surface quality). They are absolutely the worst in other ways (soo much faff with post curing). If you need their pros you can’t do much else but suffer the cons. But you should really think through what you want to print before getting one.

Your question is a bit like: “what if my first shovel were an excavator?” Having an excavator is great when you need one. But if you don’t need one it is a complete nightmare compared to other shoveling solutions.

> I don't have the ability to wash and cure

I don’t know what you mean by lacking the ability?

If it is not knowing how, then the simple answer is to buy the wash+cure formlabs sells with the printer and follow the instructions. Best if you watch a video tutorial first before you even buy the printer so you can decide if you have the space, want to bother with resin printing.

Yes! Exactly.

So much of the content around this printer is adressing what resin printing is, and comparing it to fdm printers. I already know what resin printers are and what their general pros and cons compared to a a fillament based one. But they don’t bother answering why should i choose this resin printer over an other one.

So i will just wait until the hype dies down and people who owned resin printers review it.

There are two reason why i’m cautiously optimistic about this printer though:

- i’m a member of a hackspace. And training new members on our elegoo resin printers is a pain. In particular explaining safe resin handling is a battle. In theory this model from Formlabs would require less contact with the resin. So that sounds great. Of course that promise is only good as long as things go well. But there might be benefit there.

- in my private practice i make jewellery. One of the techniques i use is lost-resin casting. The resins involved are tricky. The designs are intricate Because of that there are many print failures. In theory their printers and slicer should be much better engineered to minimise such failures. Does it work that way in practice? Only a review could tell.

> and vat stirring wiper

The printer model in question doesn’t have that feature.

> the player who goes first usually wins

That is the point the game is meant to teach. Literally.

The original game developed by Lizzie Magie is a didactical game to illustrate the problems of monopolies accumulating ever more wealth.

It is crazy that we seemingly forgot the message and keep playing this game. Even on a purely “is this fun” level there are so much better games.

> That people's beliefs about X vary is not evidence that X itself varies.

That works with things where "X" exists outside of people's beliefs.

Like where X is "gravity". It doesn't matter what you believe why an apple falls down, it will fall down the same.

But where X is "ethics" that doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs about it.

In one culture if you have a guinea pig, you kill it and then roast it that is just and proper. A sucullent meal. In an other culture if you do the same you will be forever known as the "monster who eat his guinea pig", will be harassed and likely even reported to authorities. Try it. Get a guinea pig from the pet store, roast it and serve it to your guests. See what they think of you in the Andes, or in California. The apple falls the same in both places, but the guinea pig doesn't taste the same in both places.

There is no "ethics as the ethicometer measures it". Just "ethics as the society around you recognises it".

> 300 hectares = 3 sq km / ~1.16 sq miles

How I managed to imagine it is that it is roughly the size of the Central Park in New York.

Yes! That is the danger. That the model is a “manchurian candidate”. It might be engineered to act against your best interest in some circumstances.

The circumstances can be very narrow. For example the code word you mentioned which activates a whole different personality with different objectives.

It can be also much more broad. Like a model which is engineered to be quite good at web dev but to slip in subtle buffer overflows into any driver code it writes, or to mess up when it is working on multi threaded syncronisation in a way which results in infrequent but serious lock-ups.

Or very broadly, like have correct sounding but dangerous advice about economics policy.

Or even broader. Engineer it to amplify the chanches of AI psychosis in users who are prone to it. Detect when someone went off the rails and push them even further. But perhaps only when prompted in English, not when prompted in Chinese.

Now. Is any of this happening? Eh. Probably not. Not yet at least. We can barelly make these work. But still, probably best to not risk it in sensitive applications, because it is hard to prove an AI is “safe” and “aligned” even when the creators work on your team.

> China will have access to literally everything

So these are open weight models. You can run them on your own hardware. How would they have “access to literally everything”? Or what is the threat model you are thinking about here?

First of all, i don’t know why you are talking about engineers. This is a business decision, not an engineering one.

> I seriously can’t understand why there’s so much respect for anyone that works at Meta.

Is there? Thats new for me.

> yet they’re being praised for being the example of best engineers

Are they? I associate meta with the “move fast and break things” philosophy, not engineering excelence.

I’m sure there are some fine engineers there. But by and large it is just a big company with questionable ethics and lots of money.

> Let’s check in in five years!

Do you have particular predictions we can evaluate in five years?

I don’t think the technical implementation is the barrier.

I would be much more worried about the human element of technology development. Namely that having a web based interface which shows data, but can’t change anything would feel unnatural. I can totaly imagine that you make the choice, implement it correctly. you have your website only showing things but unable to make changes.

A day later a product person asks for the ability to set the temperature on the web interface. You kindly and patiently explain to them that due to safety reasons you can’t implement that feature. They will understand and nod.

A month later one of the execs asks for a similar feature. They might also present the feature as mission critical, or even package it in the language of safety. After all customer X just lost so much money because we couldn’t do this one simple thing via the web interface. You argue with them and your viewpoint eventually wins. But it is a bit hard to argue because you ultimately have to argue that you / your team cannot be trusted to implement the feature safely. So you have to make it sound like you are both competent enough to be trusted with this hard decision and incompetent at making things secure enough the same time. A hard sell. But you win somehow.

Then a month later there is a hackathon. And one of the new hires puts together this amazingly looking new product UI. Everyone is amazed it is genuenly a delight to use. But it completely ignores the data diode principles. You have to kick it into the long grass, or modify it so much that it is barelly recognisable.

Then a month later a new product development start. Your company is hoping to conquer some new vertical, and need to make a cheaper version of the product. So an electrical engineer is tasked to cost optimise the control unit. They correctly point it out that we could reduce the BOM cost by more than half if only we got rid of the data diode and the second set of microcontroller. You have to argue the safety case. People nod. But you are loosing more and more “political capital”. Upper management asks you to work with the EE on how you can maintain the safety while also cutting cost. You know that this won’t be easy and the savings won’t be as much.

And so on and so on. So even if the company implements such data diode, and implements it correctly and safely. Future product and business pressures will work against it. Realistically you are not going to win every single argument about it. One day you will come back from a holiday and there will be someone who circumvented it either because they didn’t know better, or didn’t believe that they cannot be trusted to make the circumvention safe enough. It is a people problem, not a tech problem. If there is even such a distinction.

> Heck, 5 years ago nobody was thinking seriously about AI having the potential to exterminate us.

That's just not true. Nick Bostrom published "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" 12 years ago. The book is clear evidence that people were very much seriously thinking about the potential dangers of AI.

> AI exterminating us has been the realm of science fiction for decades

If we count the Golem stories then the idea of a human made artificial servant rebelling against us because of our hubris is hundreds of years old.

> Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant.

You only think that because you had the misfortune to be born down a deep gravity well. While that's the only kind of life we have evidence for, doesn't mean that's the only kind of life which can occur.

Sentients who evolved inside or on the surface of an asteroid would maybe think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away.

That being said I agree with the general idea that any alien entity who visits us has likely went through industrialisation and related destruction.