imtringued
If you divide a product' cost into its "cost of availability" and the variable costs, none of this would even matter.
You could just ignore your noisy neighbors fighting over who gets to be the happy one, while you in your newfound freedom are simply happy.
If it wasn't clear, if you do not divide the two costs, then their fates are intertwined and so are the outcomes.
Surprisingly this is both mundane news for frontier AI lab customers and terrible news for frontier AI labs.
The irony is that your response is more anthropocentric than arnby's comment ever was.
If you wanted to use this as an educational opportunity to say "income share of labor" and "income share of capital" you might have had a point, but I'm the one who has to tell you that.
So the unfairness happens entirely during the transition. The fact that the unfair advantage can be retained over time has nothing to do with automation though.
Grains contain both starch and oil and when you mill the grains, the oil goes rancid much faster than the starch.
If you remove the oil you have a nutritionally worse product but it lasts longer on the shelves.
The reason is quite basic. Global temperature includes the oceans which make up 70% of earth's surface and have a higher storage capacity for heat. So a 4°C global temperature rise might be closer to an 8°C increase to your current local average temperatures and that's the normal days. If you have heat waves those might be +15°C or more.
At those temperatures, Americans and Europeans might need air conditioned buildings just to survive. Other places will require people to wear portable air conditioners.
Obviously you'll also need to move all agriculture indoors.
This might not be climate change denial but the effects are basically the same.
I'm not sure there is any point in hair splitting whether someone wants to or accidentially lets humanity die out.
In either case you should ignore his research.
The entire reason Alfred Nobel even came up with the price is that he didn't want to be remembered as the merchant of death once he passed away.
He made his fortune using explosives, in other words, he made money off of killing people.
Now this guy (Nordhaus) is willingly stepping up in justifying mass extinction and then gets a "in memory of Nobel" prize, basically glorifying "the merchant of death" and thereby turning the entire Nobel price idea on its head.
Nordhaus's model is best described as an "Optimal extinction model". The type of model you would advocate because you're not going to survive until the consequences hit, so him dying today isn't some sad event, it's him shirking his responsibility to the future.
Because humans were, loosely speaking, careful about not making egregious security mistakes, most security vulnerabilities turned out to be either harmless or the result of a programming language allowing the type of exploit to begin with.
But now we have code from non-people ordered by people who both don't care about security at all.
That means you will get maximally bad security outcomes which in turn will make governments consider regulating the software development industry. They are speed running their own demise.
Crew dragon being retired is only a problem in so far that Starship isn't ready. It's really strange to somehow spin "SpaceX is doing something stupid that hurts customers" into "SpaceX is too competent for its customers".
As far as we know, Starship should fix the limited payload issues of Falcon 9 so why would anyone ever have to worry about Starship only launching Starlink satellites?
It's also weird how shutting down Falcon 9 and crew dragon means that SLS and Orion cannot be canceled anymore even if congress (the boogeyman) agreed.
Make this make sense.
Special casing your domains to be assumed "secure" is exactly how you build vulnerabilities directly into your software.
It's an inevitable result.
Developers aren't aware because they assume a security model where the special casing is disabled.
const std = @import("std");
fn performTasks(io: std.Io) !void {
var group: std.Io.Group = .init;
errdefer group.cancel(io);
// Launch concurrent background jobs
try group.async(io, simulateWorker, .{ io, 1 });
try group.async(io, simulateWorker, .{ io, 2 });
// Wait for all group tasks to complete
try group.await(io);
}
fn simulateWorker(io: std.Io, id: usize) void {
std.log.info("Worker {d} started...", .{id});
// Any blocking operation (like sleeping) routes through 'io'
// Under the hood, this will either block an OS thread or yield an event loop stack.
io.sleep(.fromSeconds(1), .awake) catch {};
std.log.info("Worker {d} finished!", .{id});
}
pub fn main() !void {
var gpa_alloc = std.heap.GeneralPurposeAllocator(.{}){};
defer _ = gpa_alloc.deinit();
const allocator = gpa_alloc.allocator();
// Initialize the Threaded I/O backend
var threaded = std.Io.Threaded.init(allocator, .{
.async_limit = std.Io.Limit.limited(4), // Max concurrent tasks in the pool
});
defer threaded.deinit();
// Extract the generic I/O interface pointer
const io = threaded.io();
std.log.info("Running on Threaded backend:", .{});
try performTasks(io);
}
pub fn main() !void {
var gpa_alloc = std.heap.GeneralPurposeAllocator(.{}){};
defer _ = gpa_alloc.deinit();
const allocator = gpa_alloc.allocator();
// Initialize the Evented (non-blocking) backend
var evented: std.Io.Evented = undefined;
try evented.init(allocator, .{
.thread_limit = 4, // Worker threads running the event loop
});
defer evented.deinit();
// Extract the exact same generic interface
const io = evented.io();
std.log.info("Running on Evented backend:", .{});
try performTasks(io);
}
The only real question you should have is, how does the "non-blocking" case work when the interface is still a synchronous call? Well, the answer is quite boring... You just call into the scheduler and it runs the other task inside the blocked operation.
I was promised hidden magic and implicit logic! Now I want a refund!
If they claim their AI is too powerful to contain, they get to both pretend they are among the best AI labs and that the previous incidents weren't their fault, no, they just proved how good their models were.
You say you want X but you do Y.
But then you say you don't want X, you want someone to magically make Y as good as X.
That type of wishful thinking is all the rage in politics.