lend000

Would be cool if so, but I wonder what the plan is regarding radiation pressure pushing things out of orbit.

They seem to have solved the car break-in problem since you left. Overall the city feels much safer and cleaner than it did 10 years ago, although the character of the city has also changed.

> Most good art or writing requires engagement from the reader and something is created in engaging with it

This is an interesting point, and as I said before, reading a book >> than short form content (although you could also argue a 3Blue1Brown video watched intentionally could also provide some level of engagement, while still being categorically different than creating a video or novel in the first place). I would agree that the best forms of art, whether in novels or music or otherwise, invite some level of creative participation. But that is rare, and it's still (in my opinion) a fundamentally different and constrained form of creativity.

> I find the words consumption and content problematic.

They're just words, they're appropriate here, and they had meaning long before digital ads.

That being said, your needless hostility suggests you attach a significant amount of ego to reading. Maybe you aren't aware of that, so I leave it as an observation here. If you like reading books, no one here is questioning your life decisions. If you use reading to signal superiority, well, that's a whole different issue.

I didn't say it was all roughly the same or that you shouldn't do it, but it's obviously still consumption. If nobody ever consumed, there would be less value in creating art. Like all things in life, it should be done in moderation and balanced with creative activities.

While books > articles > audiobooks > podcasts > listening to music > TV > short-form content, it's all content consumption in the end, and while that's fine, I think it's a little overhyped.

I prefer to draw the distinction at creating vs doing vs consuming, and focus on balancing the time spent consuming (which is a natural part of enjoying life, but usually people consume way too much) unless it's in the service of one of the other two categories (e.g. consuming articles to learn/inspire the creation of something better or plan a trip to do something, etc.)

I knew someone who worked at some sort of homeless services clinic, and I asked how many people they were able to help get back on their feet in a sustainable way. The answer was 1; I don't know what the denominator was, but the takeaway is that most of the visibly homeless people you see are uncoachable and you really can't protect people from themselves. With a huge caveat that the visibly homeless is a subset of the homeless/impoverished population.

I can't imagine who is using something like this for agentic coding, but I see exciting opportunities on the horizon when we can have hundreds of reasonably rational and conversational agents working on local machines to simulate emergent behavior (simulating crowds, markets, ecosystems, game NPCs, etc.)

> The risk is the same as what Intel had. There is a group who are pushing them to go bigger and with a resource no limit approach, who have a lot of dollars to push you that way. Follow them and they lead you to a pile of money, but then you risk something like Apple Silicon happening.

The problem was that Intel stopped making things faster and better, and shifted to wearables and mobile chips instead of investing in their hard-tech strategy that had worked for decades.

Yeah honestly I don't get any of the fear-mongering from any side. If access to intelligence and knowledge is scary to you, that's a you problem.

Is it going to change the world? Yes. In more positive ways than negative ways. Websites will continue to get hacked, as they are already getting hacked. People who are afraid of AI are really just afraid of change.

Ironically, Google is the company I'd prefer to have the frontier models.

Anthropic's fear-mongering and marketing is the reason we have these restrictions in the first place.

Despite their virtue signaling, Anthropic is the only major lab that has never released an open weights model, has been caught intentionally nerfing a model after release (Opus 4.6), intentionally and silently degrades performance for suspected competitors and AI researchers, complains incessantly about distillation when everyone is doing it (and after they settled for pirating books), and wants to pull the ladder out from everyone trying to catch up.

They're anti-consumer and only concerned with holding the power themselves. I'm not a fan of Altman, but Anthropic is the worst actor in the space, and I hope they lose.

Even the original idea (if The Social Network is a trustworthy source) was copied -- Zuckerberg just has a complete lack of vision, but is clearly an intelligent operator with good business sense. Jagged intelligence, like an LLM.

What are you willing to give up to be less afraid of all these extremely hypothetical risks? (which in the case of bio/nuclear/chemical is mostly access to controlled materials and capital anyway)

Access to information and knowledge is probably the very last thing I'd be willing to give up, personally.

I think most people would be a lot happier if they were less fearful in general.

We've been hearing about the risks of engineered viruses and homemade superweapons since GPT 3.5, so where are they? We've had abliterated open weights models much stronger than GPT 4 for over a year now.

It's been interesting seeing how OpenAI pops up to counter the threat of AGI being controlled by Google, and then OpenAI and every spinoff company from its employees has become a far larger threat to the public, for different reasons.

As much as it seems like Anthropic's self righteous leadership truly believes in what they're preaching, they've shown themselves to be tied for the worst stewards of this technology. Google actually seems like the best option to me, by far. Anthropic is also the only major lab with no open weights releases.

They'll have burned a lot of goodwill with the community by the time another lab takes the tech lead, which I guarantee will happen.

Zone 5 is usually 1-2 minutes out of a longer 30 minute cardio session for me, I do it as a final sprint. I am not talking about repeated hill sprints where you would get 10+ minutes of zone 5 cardio in a session, which I agree would not be something a normal person should do 4x/week.

From my own experience, it seems like hitting that Zone 5 briefly is a good nervous system reset (overrides any dysfunctional breathing and heart rate effects from long covid); it's less about training the heart, although that's an excellent side effect.