How do you think this applies to paid YouTube accounts? I have one, and I don’t ever see YouTube ads. I still see the in-video ads that the artists insert into their videos, but even then I can skip them easily, and YouTube actually makes that easier, since I can skip forward twice and I get a button to skip the segment.
YouTube is pretty far along the enshitification curve. I don’t see them changing things enough to turn that ship around.
This is just posturing of the like that we’ve seen since I’ve been aware of world politics, in the 80s. Before then too, but I only have read about that.
There is a line, but given nuclear war is unprecedented, I don’t know where that is. That said, if we are talking nuclear weapons, I don’t think anywhere is safe.
Hahaha Brilliant
I hope that as intelligent entities become better at modeling orders, they become more empathic
With regards to the expensive organization, I say embrace the chaos! Just get a few bins so people don’t have to be up on each other, but if you have a lot of fun stickers, people will enjoy the hunt. Heck, you might find people that enjoy sorting and categorizing them. In any case, it’s an activity-focused social event, where the chance of finding what you’re looking for is improved by cooperation. As people pick stickers that they identify with, it will spark conversations. I love it.
I don’t think China is willing to accept yielding. I can’t think of any reason that they would.
This is totally a shower thought, and I don’t trust it, but what about a strategy of semi-cooperation? China has been contributing to open source models. Those models have been keeping up with, and catching up to the capabilities of the closed source models.
I wonder if mutual containment could come through having similar capabilities as we both learn from each other’s research. Then neither side has a gross advantage. Maybe it doesn’t have to be zero-sum.
.
Any idea of how it handles context length? I’ve been using VS Code Copilot, and it’s great up until the AI assistant hits its context cap. I know that when it says, “Summarizing conversation,” that the assistant has been lobotomized and replaced with an agent who has all of the confidence of the last assistant, but basically no idea what it’s really doing.
It’s at this point that it’s most likely to screw up the codebase. I can’t imagine how it’s supposed to be autonomous when it suddenly becomes brain dead.
Ustice from the past, I disagree about one point. The preferences you were referring to not being moral questions is wrong. Obviously one could only include humans, or a subset of humans. Including humans in “it’s just nature” is obviously immoral.
The choice of where to draw the line is very much a moral question. At least all humans is a pretty good Schelling point, but after that it there are only a few major points before things get murky, and rational moral minds can disagree.
I don’t believe you meant to be dismissive, but your argument was, and that’s not fair. I apologize on his behalf.
Even without an A/B comparison, if policies came with measures of success, that would go a long way to steering into better policies. Do school vouchers improve outcomes for students? It seems plausible, but we should be able to track graduation rates, and GPAs. Maybe we can even agree that that is an important goal. If after 5 years, those measures are not showing significant improvement, we can conclude that the voucher program didn’t meet its goals, and at the very least the policy needs to change, if not directly reversed.
It’s not perfect, as there can be confounding effects, but by tying the life of a policy to success metrics (that hopefully would be easier to agree on), we can at least we can show progress, and rule out the worst ideas.