vladms

Science has progressed a lot in the last 57 years. And probably SpaceX can do what it does now also because of some of those progresses (computational, communication, materials, etc.). 50 years ago you would not have a need for a Starlink constellation, so nobody built enough capacity to make one.

I think the actual trade-off is between average acceptable risk at society level.

Some societies prefer huge risks for huge benefits, in those one (might) need a more detailed credit reports because everything is faster, people accept huge risks and the situation can suddenly change.

Some societies prefer more stability. Lower risks, lower surprises. Less opportunities, everything is slower, people can't even take that many risks, simpler histories will do th trick.

From what I notice though, housing seems to be a problem in both types of societies, irrespective on how credits are given, because there are other things involved (regulation, NIMBY, housing used as value, airbnb, geography, etc).

Not sure about which game you talk about, at least in Zero-K pauses in team multiplayer games are quite rare and annoying people get moderated out.

I am sure people could find code such that an LLM can optimize it 10x fold. I have seen many types of code in my life (well written, horribly written, fast, slow, etc.).

I do feel there is a limit to LLM-s today. I did not try, but I doubt it will work if I would tell it "make me a web browser that is bug free, perfectly secure, works as efficient as possible on my architecture and has best UX for me personally".

Knowing where that limit is, is as hard as it always was knowing how fast a team of engineers was going to do a project.

I guess I was selected for the cohort "never show a useful ad to hide we're listening" even if I don't try to protect a lot (except an add blocker in a navigator).

Honestly I wish I would get more targeted ads for the stuff I look for, when I look. Instead, for some, it happens that after I buy them, I get repeated ads after couple of weeks or even months (like, invoice is on gmail, photos of the object on my phone, but nooo they want to trick me, so they still send me more ads of the same shit that I will not buy again in years).

Seriously, I think the tracking is as crappy as most software is. Sure, it might identify one/two keywords and throw ads at you, but it does it a dumb volume way that corporations work, not in a smart "we know everything about you way", that a true geek might implement.

Yeah, like the way US citizens now are not targeted at all by ICE because their data is out there? Future evil government will not care about your data, they can just invent shit. The idea is to instill fear and uncertainty not "finding the correct people".

On the other hand, said data can be today use because various entities use extremely shitty authentication methods, like just insert your birthday and first name and voila you have a credit with our bank (not an actual example, just for illustration purposes).

I think we can have both and it might even be smart.

A lot of people causing issues are people that can't make sense of many things (like many terrorists). They get a fixed idea and they end up doing something bad. You would catch those with some (basic) surveillance.

A lot of normal people (not wanting to cause issues) might benefit from some privacy, if they understand what are the trade-offs (like government overreach). They can then use a slightly more complex tech.

We would still remain with the couple intelligent but sociopaths (think Unabomber style), but I think no solution can fix all cases.

I find the discussion about AI starting from the (mostly) for profit companies involved in AI very dubious. There are a many fields (bio-tech, nuclear, chemical) which could provide an "existential risks" to the human species, but most of the companies involved argue they control it, while other people argue they don't do it well enough.

I do think AI is posing a threat, but not "by itself" but mostly what it can do in the hands of misguided (or evil) people. The same as with previous risks.

And if our digital infrastructure can be brought down by something (AI/human/government) it is just badly done, being afraid of "AI" will not improve the situation. Someone should come with a proposal about what do we do now, but I would prefer more root cause solutions (how to make resilient systems) rather than "fear of AI". But building is hard and fear catches media attention, so...

I do indeed wonder why do they care about ICC considering they did not recognized it. One reason is that in fact that some of this "great powers" are much more "weaker" than they pretend, and that someone exposing something bad that they do will still have some effect on them.

Or (not sure if better or worse), they the "great powers" are stupid and they did not hear of the "Streisand effect".

I understand the feeling, what worked for me was "you know what, fuck it, I will just plan it more loosely, let's see what goes wrong or who is unhappy".

Most of the times, everybody is happy even if things are not perfectly planned, and then they thank me for the "effort" (which was minimal, and sometimes can introduce confusions, as I need to adjust the date or the style as more constraints become evident).

I sometimes think it's a problem of my education of engineering as well, because I want everything planned well, think of all exceptional cases, etc.

I personally avoid to think about my self with labels about what "immutable" things "I am". Like "he is tall", "he has Z skin color", "he has 9 fingers", "he has brain type X", "he is thin", etc.

I do care about what values, passions and friends I have, and I have tried to find a set that is consistent.

I do not mind if someone tells me "I am an introvert", even if I do not find it extremely interesting. But if he says "I am introvert and will be unhappy all my life because I can't change that", I can't avoid thinking that he is focusing on something that does not help.

I think previously it was at least as bad. For hundreds of years slavery was fine. Killing people for believing into one thing or another (witchcraft, different religions, etc). Making people kill each other because the ruler says so. And many others.

Sure, we are not an ideal society and over relying on metrics is bad, but it is HARD to decide how we best use the resources to improve the world, and everybody has an opinion.