oleganza

Organizations are not run by a single person. Imagine yourself as an investor into a large organization. Or you are invited to work as a CEO. You would definitely want to limit your own responsibility (in terms of financial losses or legal costs) when there are hundreds or thousands of people working together and anyone can make a mistake.

Of course you'd have compliance department to look over the processes to minimize the risk of mistakes and correct them ASAP (if you don't, you'd be liable for negligence and open yourself to a higher chance of failures). But since mistakes and miscommunication is inevitable anyway, you'd require hard limits in every obligation - in terms of time, money, scope etc.

Organizations that are not protecting themselves do not live long. And this principle has nothing to do with the nature of their activity.

Why is null-terminated C string considered a "billion dollar mistake", but UB isn't?

So much communism is being unleashed lately on the news. First amendment provides for freedom from coerced speech.

Also: releasing just the weights is like releasing some source code without makefiles or configuration scripts. Sounds half-baked.

PS. The real problem with concentration of mega-models is the same old problem of temporary monopolies in emergent markets (IBM in 80s, Microsoft in 90s, Google Search in 2000s). Let's not worry too much about other peoples' money and use the amazing tools we have to solve our problems today.

You just demonstrated a _preference_: ability to choose between options and therefore ranking them. That's the single distinctive feature between NPCs and main characters: ability to have preferences.

The author of the article also demonstrated a preference: according to certain criteria of moral obligation they decided for themselves that it's better to "do something because you feel like doing it, not because you feel like you have to."

Again, to manifest such preference you have to be the main character and not an NPC.

Only non-NPC can decide to what degree that want to be like an NPC and what meaning they put into it. NPCs don't have ability to put meaning into things or display preference.

Are we going to build a dyson sphere some day or are we not? That's some hell of a "increasing our energy usage".

This is big if huge!

It may very well turn out that probabilistic approximation would be 1000000x cheaper to compute than the deterministic precise theory.

Or even better, even formulating the deterministic theory would require 1000000x energy than approximation. And that's how'd we learn that biological minds do the same trick and skip the hard work :-)

I don't think your comment is fair to the author. If there was not such caveat, then there would not be a need to write that article.

Sorry for the irony, but the article is so long, i asked gpt to extract key points.

I think what'd be a stronger point is talking about centralization of the quality models. Modern AI tools are inherently centralized around huge shared infrastructure that gives enormous leverage (== capacity for abuse) to those owning the infrastructure. This is true even if you have strong competition among several players: each of them would converge on some business model and majority of users would not be bothered with long-term consequences if they receive very tangible short-term value.

The tooling is amazing, amount of productivity we unlock is fantastic and it's getting better by the day. But we need to watch out for collateral damage too. The future is somewhere there, but we can steer it towards being more or less hazardous.

Your response was more correct in a professional sense than producing the piece of knowledge you've been asked for. I'd prefer to work with people who value everyone's time and write programs accordingly. If the interviewer was looking for a valuable expert, they were lucky to get you on board.

It's just not cool to have kids. There are many more ways to have fun and status in society, so having kids is either coming as a social burden ("i am expected to by my spouse/relatives"), or a religious thing. Rationally, it's such a pain in the ass to have kids, while you can have some much more fun without them: travel the world, meet people, learn and explore! Clearly, having kids is net cost and suffering.

Yet, those who opt in do have a different opinion. We got two a decade ago, and then a couple years ago through of FOMO that when we are 45 we'd look back and regret missing the window of having another couple of kids. So we did. I'm 39, have four kids, had to get a bigger car, pay the airline tickets through the nose, spend a lot of time on kids' stuff, and love it. My family is the center of the universe and I'm the happiest and wisest dad alive. Everyone else is childish ;-P

These seem like particularly specific excuses. If you are not into having kids, there are many different ways to rationalize that (but why?). If you are into kids, you'd have to overcome all sorts of pain and suffering, car culture is by far not the worst of them.

(Father of 4, 39 y.o., non-religious.)

As a father of four (2+2: third one was born after 8 years since the second one), I thought all the trouble in the world would come and go, but what'll stay is us having a second life with kids when older ones get all independent teenagers. And we are not 40 yet.

The transportation costs are annoying, but worth it.

TV examples show that Apple simply has done their scrolling right, while everyone else did not work out the necessary details.