I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).

If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?

Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.

Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how those examples are deterministic while gAI is not. Your responses with personal attacks makes it harder to address your claims and makes me think you are here to convince yourself and not others.

I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.

All the technologies you listed behave deterministically, or at least predictably enough that we generally don’t have to worry about surprises from that abstraction layer. Technology does not just move on, practitioners need to actually find it practical beyond their next project that satisfies the shareholders.

Yes it’s a proxy war. Doesn’t mean you should go around “liberating” your neighbors by folding them into your own territory.

The part about robots doing backflips causes the robot to wear down faster has me thinking the whole “replace humans with humanoids” should be framed as comparative advantage rather than how many robots would be required to build itself. Given the number of humanoids required to replicate itself, you could take those same complex parts, rearrange them into non-humanoid configurations and have more output both in an interval of time and over the life time of those parts.

Okay, Marge Simpson

I wonder what they’ll name that nuclear disaster after…

I don’t think I have ever seen that explanation work on someone who is misinformed, but if I am proven wrong then the world will be a better place.

I phone banked for Harris but she was making our jobs harder by taking unpopular positions. What will you have me say to the voter who won’t vote for a Newsom presidency because they take AIPAC money? Because I was told to just move on and call the next person.

His donation pledge was more of a flex because he’s increased his net worth more than he has donated. Also, people who were friends with Epstein should not get to decide where that money goes.

The guy is on the Epstein list and his wife left him because he was too friendly to the guy…

He also fucked over our public education system

Ehh, China is increasingly caring about it’s international image, and there’s always backroom deals.

After reading the Epstein emails: But why would investors invest in something they can’t literally fuck?

I want to take this argument of efficiency in a different direction. First, two key observations: the system doing the simulation will never be as efficient as the system being modeled. Second a conscious system is aware of it’s own efficiency. This means even if you simulate a whole human body to create consciousness it will not have the same quality. It will either be aware of all the extra resources required to create “self” or fed a simulation of self that hides it’s own nature and thus cannot be self aware.