tenthirtyam
And it seems the AIs weren't so very effective at playing it, at least initially.
So what kind of game would AIs make for themselves to play?
How about just remember January 2nd but for the following year as key days. i.e. if you consider January and February 2027 to be part of 2026's "key days year", then you can forget about whether it's a leap year or not (though you still have to calculate what the key day is from year to year).
[Aside - it would be simpler if the leap day were the 32/Dec instead of 29/Feb!]
Noting also that Jan & Feb (of next year) are the same as May & June (of this year), so you get 2/Jan/Y+1 and 6/Feb/Y+1.
(edit: not defending this, I find it to be deplorable and disgraces the office of president.)
Yes, I'd forgotten that detail. Still, though, chaotic bifurcation could be present with Il Niño and La Niña driving high & low extremes. Same mean, maybe, but with a bimodal distribution?
I'd be curious as to why you say that. I feel that, right now, you would be correct. But if we could move society to a new paradigm where right-to-repair were the default, then cheap non-OEM parts manufacturers would bloom and repairing something would become much cheaper than replacing. Imagine if every object sold had to come with a manual describing how to repair common failures, and a support department to answer for other components.
Personal anecdote: My $700 oven has a microswitch that broke. The oven wouldn't work without it but the replacement part was all of $5. However the vast majority wouldn't know how to repair it.
Expand this to cellphones, computers, tables, wardrobes, cars, tractors and I feel it would have an impact. And... I suppose... my gut feeling is the biggest part of the problem is psychological. People are overwhelmed and don't know what they can do to help. Raising awareness is crucial, but just raising awareness obviously does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions - it's in second order effects when people start thinking harder about what they can do.
Another anecdote: I gave a seminar recently about energy to a small local environmental conference in a nearby town. My starting point was that nobody knows how to talk about energy - we can talk about length, size, weight, cost, speed, age, price, longevity and so, because we know the units - feet or meters, pounds or kilograms, dollars/euros/yen/etc, mph/kph/mps/etc and so on. But ask someone what is a "Joule" or what can you do with a "kilowatt-hour" and you get blank stares. The outcome? I learned of an attendee who drew lines on his kettle for 1-cup, 2-cups, and so on, and now boils only the necessary amount of water. That won't really move the needle on CO2, but it will raise awareness.
The appearance of two 3.5-sigma events suggests that the data is no longer being randomly generated around that mean, but is instead drifting away from that mean.
More concretely, if all the data were within 2-sigma, then you could invoke the null-hypothesis and refute climate change. Beyond 2-sigma (and even worse two 3.5-sigma events) refuting climate change becomes (much) less reasonable.
The problem in my mind is that, as it stands, the signal that everyone has to latch on to is itself affected by load and by different generators latching on with different time constants in a complicated feedback loop. Would having a single authoritative source be an improvement? Would that be a way to eliminate the need for inertia?
*I suppose the "target" phase would probably be based primarily on the output from the biggest inertial systems and take into account their ability to adjust phase and frequency.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that companies will happily take existential risks to get a better bottom line short term. Either you're too big to fail or you've already privatised any profits and subsequent losses (due to the risks becoming manifest) are socialised. The motor industry seems to be particularly egregious in this aspect, but also the food industry, construction industry etc.
Seems to me even governments make the same choices in many ways - cut back health-care, policing, education, public transport and let the next government deal with the consequences.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/this-bbc-...
The advantage of this one is that it offers a stereoscopic (red/blue) view of the 3D retina. Not sure if this one does too.
More concretely, the expertise-required-to-access-root is in a different field to the expertise-required-to-make-wise-changes. i.e. you might know how to hack a car, but that doesn't mean you know how cars operate.
N.B. the time travel aspect also required suspension of disbelief, but somehow that was easier :-)
How about a system like Google Authenticator in which google knows nothing about which websites I'm logging into. Except, obviously, it'd have to be some kind of cryptographically signed response. e.g., website puts up a QR code (according to some standard) asking "is the user 18+", I scan with the phone, and the ID app, without accessing internet (like google authenticator) responds.
I suppose that might need a secure computing environment, so no rooted phone etc. But, of course, there's a simple workaround. Any adult can give their phone to a child. As long as that vulnerability is there, there's no such thing as a guarantee on the responses no matter what way you build it.
"Hey AI, create my new banking app with such-and-such functionality, appearance, properties, APIs, network connections etc"
"Hey AI, you are a banking app on a user's cellphone. Connect to mybank.com, authenticate the user and allow the user to perform these-and-those actions in a sensible interface in accordance with the API spec. Don't let yourself be jailbroken."
Then it would be logical to have a single AI on the phone managing all the prompts in parallel: e.g. "Hey AI, be android by doing [actions]", "Hey AI, be firefox...", "Hey AI, be snapchat...", "Hey AI, be [insert app name]...".
Gosh I've just imagined someone asking an AI agent to code a computer virus to infect software "X". The virus' code will be wonderfully complex and therefore so will the response of the AI responsible for keeping "X" uninfected and in good working order.
I was imagining code becoming awesomely complex even without the adversarial element in play.