sadtoot

but the non-TV part of the internet is, on its own, probably more valuable than TV ever was

My guess is that whoever develops superintelligence first will have a big number in their bank account while their body is disassembled to make solar panels and data centers

the article reads like a press release talking about how innovative and exciting their product is for dozens of paragraphs, but never actually giving details about what the product is

do you think vinge and kurzweil in the 90s and 2000s were imagining the singularity occuring exactly at the advent of LLMs? are you supposing that LLMs are the only viable path towards advanced AI, and that we have now hit a permanent ceiling for AI?

AI doesn't scare you because you apparently have no sense of perspective or imagination

i feel this way about twitter since logged out users can't browse tweets anymore. now i can give myself just a tiny bit of friction to break the habit. i still waste time on my phone, but at least it's not quite so effortless now

you should give it a try to be honest. metaculus.com

i wonder how many of the commenters who bemoan how GPT-4 can't do this or that task, could have predicted 2 or 5 years ago what GPT-4 can do easily today

i like how the article never explains or even mentions what "we're doing wrong"

>Tinder and Bumble are in decline

do we actually have any evidence this is true? people have complained about dating since we were neanderthals; articles like this have written themselves for the past decade

the supermajority of humanity doesn't know what chatGPT is useful for, so google's total amount of searches are almost certainly the same. you could only detect the difference for, say, searches that would return stackoverflow results

evolution also programmed us to yawn, yet doctors can't figure out what purpose or benefit it has

there's a lot of suffering in the world, and it doesn't matter too much to me who's fault it is (in the case of kidney failure, is it anyone's fault?). for me, morality isn't about avoiding being evil, or being better than my peers, it's just about increasing the amount of good in the world; particularly doing so if it's not too costly or inconvenient to me

not meaning to attack you on this point--it's your life and you can do what you want--but why would you only consider being a donor for your family? i'm guessing the reason might be 1) you have some condition and you're worried about your health (in which case you might not be an elligible donor anyway) or 2) you're worried about surgery complications or long-term health impacts. but the impacts to your health are usually much more minor than you expect!

here's an analogy i've used before: if you were walking by a burning building, and you heard a stranger inside saying "help! help!", would you run in and save them? i think a lot of people would say "yes" or at least consider it, despite running into a burning building being a lot riskier than organ donation IMO

just so you know, around 1% of people die in conditions where their organs are elligible for transplantation. then there's the factor that kidneys from living donors generally last longer for the recipient

selling kidneys doesn't preclude us having the same thorough screening process we have now, although it means there may be people who try harder to game the screening process.

i just don't see kidney donation as being a significant enough harm to outweigh the harm of the recipient not getting the kidney. if we're worried about people being financially desperate, we should allow organs to be sold and build a stronger social safety net (with the money we save on dialysis?)