solveit

The bright side is that it should eventually be technically feasible to create much more powerful and effective guardrails around neural nets. At the end of the day, we have full access to the machine running the code, whereas we can't exactly go around sticking electrodes into everyone's brains, and even "just" constant monitoring is prohibitively expensive for most human work. The bad news is that we might be decades away from an understanding of how to create useful guardrails around AI, and AI is doing stuff now.

I get the feeling that you're winging the specific numbers because they're spectacularly incoherent.

But anyway, the United States is extremely rich and has essentially no big problems that can be solved by a small amount (say, a few billion) of money. The problems are either so big that it would take trillions to solve (supporting aging population etc), or blocked by something other than money (politics, regulations, etc). The big problems that can be solved just by throwing a few billion at them are solved quite easily by either the government or by private entities like the Gates Foundation.

Even the US median household income is "only" $83k. Looking at stuff like this + the rest of the blog I'm not convinced the author is any less out of touch than the people this post is criticizing.

There's nothing wrong with being in debt per se, and in particular, (federal) student loans and mortgages are loans rigged in favor of the borrower.

Do you recall which paper it was? I would be interested in reading it.

Error correction is possible even if the error correction is itself noisy. The error does not need to accumulate, it can be made as small as you like at the cost of some efficiency. This is not a new problem, the relevant theorems are incredibly robust and have been known for decades.

The previous poster was actually inviting you to expound on the other reasons.

> Math fans tend to discount and dismiss applied statistics as being not math, in a way that they don't do for physics, for some reason I don't fully grasp.

It's because we're secretly afraid that the physicists are smarter than us.

Less facetiously, physicists keep discovering things that lead to new mathematics we would never have dreamed of ourselves, so we have a healthy respect for how insightful they can be.

Might be the other ingredients reducing inflammation, widening your clogged pipes and letting stuff drain.

I think mathematicians looking at that expression would curl their lips in mild disgust, but also evaluate it to True.

Depends how the flow goes. It's reasonable to only check the diagonal when one player has actually played on the diagonal, in which case this is fine.

I like good handwriting, but good, fast handwriting takes thousands of hours of practice. We used to spend a good chunk of school drilling it into kids, but now it's really hard to justify everyone spend that kind of time when we can technology our way around it and there are other valuable skills to learn.

We really have no way to know this. But I would be very surprised if modern chess engines didn't regularly blunder into losing (from the perspective of a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase) positions, and very very surprised if modern chess engines perfectly converted tablebase-winning positions.