walkhour
> I want affordable housing. Affordable healthcare. High speed rail. Better zoning laws. New subway lines.
Are you saying we only need 12% of the budget to fix these things? Note that coincidentally medicare is already accounting for ~12% of the total.
Say the military budget goes to zero (which it can't), and we spend half of that on medicare (it would be 18%). Will it fix the problem?
I think the problem is much deeper than wasting this 12%.
The truth is we don't know. People that will lose their jobs may find other jobs or not. Maybe it's harder to reinvent oneself now. Maybe a lot of people will truly suffer because of AI.
I find very hard to know with certainty what will happen, who will remain unharmed, and who will struggle but make it through, but change is coming.
So much reliance on a potential enemy was a huge mistake. Germany should've foreseen that in the span of say 40 years it was likely there would be a major conflict with Russia.
All prediction markets were estimating at fairly high this possibility and the fact that Germany didn't realize this and course-corrected is surprising to say the least.
Apparently he didn't voluntarily give away he's secrets, they were found around his place.
Hundreds of thousands for eight years in jail, decades of angst, and a broken family ...
Meanwhile finding out the number of deaths caused by extra caution and delaying the experiment requires a calculation, and then a very lengthy blog post to be communicated.
Bureaucrats don't care about the second kind of deaths because they can hardly be linked to their actions. Now the first kind of deaths are directly their responsibility. And guess what, they can be avoided with a flick of a pen.
> Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component ...
You have written both statements ...
This is just madness, house prices are guaranteed to go up and affordability is likely to increase zero.
Sure, but this is not the claim I originally quoted. I was taking about heritability, and you're taking now about disparities between groups.
Nevertheless it seems you agree the heritability of IQ is well established, which you were denying originally.
Doesn't this author have a terrible reputation? And he's known for standing by disproven theories? I'm surprised you didn't find a better example.
> How about a video essay which summarizes other critiques:
Sorry, I haven't watched these 2 hours and 40 minutes, can I read the summary somewhere? Hopefully it's better than Nassim's article.
> Or a peer reviewed summary which got published in an academic journal with over a 100 citations
What is a peer reviewed summary? Is it like a meta-analysis? But honest questions: how much weight do you think this has? Are the citations supporting it or criticising it?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Looks like an example of bad science that was caught and exposed? Why do you think this reflects badly on the rest of the research?
> To date, the literature does not support any consensus around the theory of general intelligence nor the efficacy of IQ as a theory for intelligence.
You are asking for consensus. Do you mean an ultra majority? There's no consensus even on whether climate change is real, only 97% of scientist think so. Could you give percentages of who supports what on the science of IQ.
Overall I'd recommend not taking a single article and using it as something that can refute a whole science.
This is the crux of your comment and its a huge statement. Do you have evidence supporting this claim?
Were the authors aware of how tiny Bitcoin usage is and how much waste there is going around? Of course they were. Was this datum useful to the reader? Yes. Did the authors purposefully decide to exclude this datum because it didn't fit the narrative? Of course.
Just imagine your average reader, if at the end of the article they were told, that we can't even agree on whether Bitcoin mining consumes more power than Christmas lights. Apparently that was not the case using the 2008 Christmas lights usage, and we don't know now, because both sides of the argument get wildly different values.
Your average reader leaves the article thinking they know everything they need to know about Bitcoin: it's bad because it makes energy more expensive, and people have died, possibly because energy was expensive.
I said cold blooded because the authors are aware of how they mislead, and do it nevertheless, because they have an agenda, otherwise an article can't be this biased.
> By the end of Feb. 14, 2021, nearly 40 people had died, some from the freezing cold.
And you know what? These deaths may not have happened if it wasn't because of Bitcoin.
I look forward to the NYTimes' take on the Christmas lights. Maybe they can somehow let the reader infer someone has died because they made electricity more expensive.
The whole point of the article is that either AI is not that big of a deal and like many other technologies (e.g. electricity, cars, ... ), or it's so revolutionary that's it's so hard to align that we're doomed.
Well, can't it be something else? Can't it be something very safe which gives a country a 200 year head start?
This is the only thing that matters, not whether you personally find something bizarre or not or the non sequitur about young people and different areas in UK.
Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?
Is it the same for the US? Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? An attack against the US can unleash the end of humanity. I find very risky to leave this at the whims of some out of touch Russian dictator.
Please write precisely, write what you mean, so others don't have to realize you actually mean something else than what you wrote
I'll do the same:
> Russia has gone backwards for a year now.
This is false, Russia went backwards, and then went forwards. Maybe you meant to say "has gone backwards with respect to where it was last year". That is true.