plaidfuji

I was going to ask, why would NK attack a China-based crypto firm? Then I learned that Binance isn’t headquartered anywhere. They’re literally asking to be hacked. Nobody will protect them.

This is also what keeps me using it. And whether this is rational or not, I feel that if it has a better / more concise understanding of core science/math, it also has a better shot at writing concise and correct code for those topics (a lot of what I do).

Even with the most advanced GPU-accelerated simulation packages, if you want to get to molecular-level detail and nanosecond-level dynamics (both of which are required for drug interaction), the compute time required for an accurate simulation of even a microscopic volume (say a cubic micron) is on the order of the heat death of the Sun. We’re so far from this it’s laughable. The best simulator is still the real atoms of the real world - we just need more reliable ways to control and measure them.

The discourse on tablets for kids tends to degenerate into a very judgy, black-and-white debate of so-called “tablet kids” vs… not, which I find really reductive.

Tolerance of tablet use is a spectrum ranging from the aggressively Luddite tech elite shielding their children from their own creation all the way to the 6-year-old posted up in the basin of a grocery cart dual-wielding their ruggedized tablet running Minecraft and their parents’ phone cycling through YouTube slop.

In my experience, most people fall somewhere in the middle, i.e. “we’re on our 4th hour in coach class, I’m tired of pretending this animal-themed card game is fun, and I know this isn’t development-maxing right now but we’re gonna do it for an hour to preserve our sanity and that of those around us”.

That being said, the problem with these ads is that they normalize tablet use as something that’s just another (even desirable!) part of everyday life, not a tool of last resort.

Not sure why you’re getting so strongly downvoted. The travel situations are the ones I find the most reasonable for tablet use. It’s definitely possible to keep a kid occupied for a 5 hour plane ride without a tablet but it takes work. Very few adults can raw-dog a 5 hour plane ride themselves, ffs. I may judge other parents for allowing tablet use in other situations, but not on an airplane.

> What I'm saying is the US broadly has low corruption. I don't have to pay a bribe to get my drivers license or to get through the airport.

Low compared to who? Third-world countries? Again, just shows how far we’ve fallen that these are the comparisons being made. The problem with the US isn’t direct low-level corruption, it’s systematized high-level corruption.

> Broadly speaking you can't purchase bills or laws, and have to convince the public.

There is a multi-billion-dollar lobbying industry whose purpose is essentially this, but through legal indirect channels. And the public are so ill-informed that spending money = convincing the public.

> The US has issues, but any supposed lack of data privacy laws isn't due to corruption, it's due to the will of the people

I tend to agree with this, but if there ever was broad momentum to strengthen data privacy laws, systematized corruption would stymie it. And is likely already actively suppressing it.

Also the funding of Trump Jr’s wedding by a Russian oligarch…

Private sponsorship of personal vanity projects (White House ballroom)…

Jet gifted by a foreign entity (Qatari AF1)…

Ambassadors demanding personal payment for guaranteed audiences (Guilfoyle)…

And that’s just in recent memory. The Left isn’t blameless either. The fix needs to be systemic (repeal Citizens U, re-build independent oversight and nerf the executive), but unfortunately I only see it becoming a deeper and more acrimonious blame game.

Slightly off topic, but I found this particular sentence interesting:

> This is software that isn’t ready for prime time, hasn’t been fully cooked, and is operating in a country that’s too corrupt to pass meaningful modern privacy laws or to regulate data brokers.

Something about the way this is worded, whether intentional or not, really drives home the reality of the US’ diminished standing as a trusted global partner. Like, we’re simply not taken seriously anymore. And it’s not just because of corruption - the corruption is there because of deep-seated political ignorance.

The author is a professor at Athens University.

If he truly believes this, why wait to stop thinking if AI is so capable? Why not have AI write all of your blog posts, papers, proposals, emails, conference presentations, letters of rec, etc? Read an AI script for your next keynote lecture. Every professor will be doing exactly that in the near future, as you predict.

Or maybe - maybe true critical and synthetic thinking will become even more rare and valuable than before. I actually find that when using AI in my job, I have to think more - I don’t get to do the slow work of crafting code anymore. I have to keep building my understanding of an ever-evolving codebase, on a cadence of hours. Because I have to explain what it’s doing at some point. I’m not sure that part goes away.

Or if I’m a professor writing grants or giving lectures, eventually I have to stand up and talk about it, and answer questions. So the machine can help me generate content, but I still have to internalize much of that content before I can confidently deliver it. So now that’s my rate-limiting step - the processing and digesting. I need to be doing that every day, and people will come to expect a new rate of output.

I think for some people, there will be an ability to tune out and become a manager of AI, just passing specs, requirements and feedback through. But I suspect that for many “knowledge workers”, the “knowledge” part is actually going to get more intense. That’s been my experience so far at least.

But maybe that’s just the last gasp of somebody being outcompeted by a thinking machine.

It’s a good question - my sense is it is a combination of factors. First, robotics hardware is not at the $20k price point I hypothesized, and the durability is also not good enough to realize a payoff. Second, enabling remote operation would require significant additional investment in sensors and probably enhanced control workstations on the operator end - unlikely to be doable from a laptop. A reliable high speed internet connection would also be required on both ends. And third, human operators can be kind of a wild card. They require training, management, and carry their own security and safety risks.

Again, I’m not saying we’re there, it just feels like the control software is the main bottleneck, and the development of that is now being accelerated by LLMs.

> understates the amount of real world (i.e. visual, physical, sensory) data and tacit knowledge

I agree the data trove for these is not nearly as comprehensive as “the entire internet” was for LLMs. But LLMs paved the way - people are building the datasets rapidly now. I suspect this will look a lot like LLM rollout looked over the past 5-ish years. Unusable garbage… less unusable garbage… then suddenly, a fully capable model like Opus 5.5 or the like.

And the “problem” with the way the foundational models seem to work is that they don’t just acquire individual skills one at a time like we do - they go from knowing nothing to knowing everything.

> I'm also continually surprised that people seem to think politics doesn't exist anymore. I find it exceedingly unlikely that massive amounts of people will simply accept this

This is exactly the part I’m afraid of. The political response of the displaced labor (which may or may not be violent / revolutionary), and the subsequent counter-response of capital… potentially using the very robots that displaced the jobs to begin with.

> If every exhibit must be scanned and uploaded for critical commentary by AI, so be it, but counsel may not supplant the record with an artificial facsimile and force the consumption of AI circumlocutions without end. If these sorts of filings pass muster here then they must pass muster in every other case. That development would mark the end of human-centered jurisprudence because it will prove necessary for judges and their staff to outsource their own duties to an AI tool.

I’m afraid this is where most cases of general “arbitration” are headed. Whether it’s a court case, you negotiating with your insurance / warranty / other hostile corporate party, or even job applications to an extent, it seems that there is an advantage to be gained by both parties using AI to overwhelm their “opposition” with generative babble. It’s almost like a proof-of-work hurdle that will need to be surmounted in order to escalate to a human.

I agree with this and whether it’s their intention or not, I think it’s for the best. People already become more callous in online interactions with other people, and that probably bleeds into everyday life as well. I would imagine having an AI “punching bag” might enable people to slip into the same behavior IRL.

We largely already missed our chance to stop the toxicity of social media - let’s not mess it up again with chat bots.