ponow
ponow on Hacker News
Then make your own world where you don't benefit from the knowledge gained by means you don't approve of. This world is not that world.
Legislation is much worse than organically derived common law, for the common law comprises decisions that apply to particular conditions with all their details while the former are mere idealizations.
Yes, I would argue that it would be better for more to have been incarcerated, for that would bring greater focus to injustice and the law would be changed. Selective enforcement interferes with the feedback mechanism that would otherwise make the law work better.
Categorical rejection of alternatives is premature without context.
Federal funding of research is un-American.
Go was a response, in part, to C++, if I recall how it was described when it was introduced. That doesn't seem to be how it ended it out. Maybe it was that "systems programming language" means something different for different people.
I'm happy enough if I'm better off for having used a tool than having not.
Meaningless? The participation in a usefully predicting path is meaning. A different meaning.
And Gemini has a note at the bottom about mistakes, and many people discuss this. Caveat emptor, as usual.
> LLMs are [...] sophisticated simulators of reasoning-like text
Most humans are unsophisticated simulators of reasoning-like text.
Could it be that your particular position required more ongoing learning, and that has kept you better prepared for a changing world?
What fraction of positions require that ongoing learning, or at least to that degree?
Also, consider many other jobs, are they doing their job, and the doing of their job itself provides the experience that makes you a more valuable worker? Or is the doing of the job basically a necessary distraction from the actual task of preparing yourself for a future job? What fraction of humanity actually takes on two jobs, the paying job and the preparing-for-the-next-job? Might doing the latter get you fired from the former? Most importantly, is doing that latter job getting more important over time, that is, are our jobs less secure? If so, is this what is an improving economy, rising, as it were, with GDP?
These are welcome changes, as the practice of DEI (not it's idealization) is actively discriminatory and intolerant of dissenting views. Let competence be the only metric.
False. Mass accumulations of capital allow exploratory research without a clear path to commercial benefit, but it's a cherry on top, a kind of motivator for researchers.
> they didn't trust private industry to do it on their own
That's a laugh. The fact of the printed money being thrown around crowds out private investment, because no loser wants to pay where competitors reap. It needs to be dead certain that no one near government will fund research, then it will creep back in. Politicians making promises kills private research funding.
It's ironic that the much more significant ultimate success of deep learning happened despite a lack of government funding, if Hinton is to be believed. The 90s were a neural net winter, and success required faster computation, a private success.
I lose zero sleep at the prospect that there would be zero government robotics research funding. If the advantages are there, profit seekers will find a way. We must stop demonizing private accumulations of capital, "ending" billionaires and "monopolies" that are offering more things at lower cost. Small enterprises cannot afford a Bell Labs, a Watson Research, a Deep Mind, a Xerox PARC, etc.
Yes, reduce, even end government research.
As if centralization with one big company weren't enough, now we're not even satisfied with one country, but a block of them. Yikes.
Nope, run in the opposite direction. Unsuck from any teat.
Unless you bound compensation, a proclamation of "non-profit" rings hollow.
None of that is combatting sexism, but reality.
We need one title one owner. Shared ownership is confusion. Governmens shouldn't run interference between managers and stockholders.
Developing defence capacity is a basic responsibility. Humans can scream foul if they lose out to machine hybrids or extraterrestrials.
If you have to force something, it is. And it's being forced. If we made more white play in the NBA it might seem clearer.
Don't commit the crime if you can't handle it. It's a punishment.
No, it's equal outcones, or worse, turn the tables. Racist hiring aka affirmative action illustrates this.
But that line is what people agree with, not the commie stuff.
So your angle is just to let ChatGPT fill that space?
There is no stealing. Employees can always quit. Returning the next day is acceptance of the current expression of terms of employment.
What startups have you run and what approach did you take?
Our ancestors suffered greatly with far greater inconveniences.
Rather bourgeois remark. Unsurprising that that developed countries' populations are in question with gatekeeping like that.