I remember one town hall where he was asked "If you had to start over again, what sort of company would you start?" and his answer was "I wouldn't, all the good ideas are already taken."
There's a difference between having the humility to admit that you might not be able to hit another home run, and between claiming that "all the good ideas are taken." At best, the latter is an admission of a lack of a desire to even try anymore, at worst it shows a stunning lack of curiosity and creativity.
To assert that "all the good ideas are taken" is ridiculous on its face. How can anyone possibly know that? How can anyone even know that the number of possible good ideas is finite?
It's a thing that has been said by various people throughout history and it has always been a ludicrous assertion before. Why does he think it's different now?
If what he meant was "I'm out of good ideas", that's different, of course.
Ok, but let's take this to the logical conclusion that at some point there will be models which displace a large segment of the workforce. How does capitalism even function then?
You should really have a look at Marx. He literally predicted what will happen when we reach the state of "let machines do all work", and also how this is exactly the way that finally implodes capitalism as a concept. The major problem is he believed the industrial revolution will automate everything to such an extend, which it didn't, but here we are with a reasonable chance that AI will do the trick finally.
It may implode capitalism as a concept, but the people who most benefit from it and hold the levers of power will also have their egos implode, which they cannot stand. Like even Altman has talked about UBI and a world of prosperity for all (although his latest puff piece says we just can't conceive of the jobs we'll have but w/e), but anyone who's "ruling" the current world is going to be the least prepared for a world of abundance and happiness for all where money is meaningless. They won't walk joyfully into the utopia they pandered in yesteryear, they'll try to prop up a system that positions them as superior to everyone else, and if it means the world goes to hell, so be it.
(I mean, there was that one study that used a chatbot to deradicalize people, but when you're the one in power, your mental pathologies are viewed as virtues, so good luck trying to change them as people.)
In my question I was asking about a hypothetical time-evolution operator that includes an analog of a light cone that you could think of as a context window. If you had a quantum state that was evolved through time by this operator then I think you could think of the speed of light being a byproduct of the width of the context window of some operator that progresses the quantum state forward by some time interval.
Note I am very much hobbyist-tier with physics so I could also be way off base and this could all be nonsense.
I’m way out of my depth here, but wouldn’t such a function have to encode an amount of information/state orders of magnitude larger than the definition of the function itself?
If this turns out to be possible, we will have found the solution to the Sloot mystery :D
The article references patent “1009908C2” but I can’t find it in the Dutch patent site, nor Google Patent search.
The rest of the article has “crank” written all over it; almost certainly investor fraud too - it’d be straightforward to fake the claimed smartcard video thing to a nontechnical observer - though not quite as egregious as Steorn Orbo or Theranos though.
I've been thinking about his a bit lately. If time is non-continuous then could you model the time evolution of the universe as some operator recursively applied to the quantum state of the universe? If each application of the operator progresses the state of the universe by a single planck-time could we even observe a difference between that and a universe where time is continuous?
So one of the most "out there" non-fiction books I've read recently is called "Alien Information Theory". It's a wild ride and there's a lot of flat-out crazy stuff in it but it's a really engaging read. It's written by a computational neuroscientist who's obsessed with DMT. The DMT parts are pretty wild, but the computational neuroscience stuff is intriguing.
In one part he talks about a thought experiment modeling the universe as a multidimensional cellular automata. Where fundamental particles are nothing more than the information they contain. And particles colliding is a computation that tells how that node and the adjacent nodes to update their state.
Way out and not saying there's anything truth to it. But it was a really interesting and fun concept to chew on.
Definitely way out there and later chapters are what I can only describe as wild conjecture, but I also found it to be full of extremely accessible foundational chapters on brain structure and function.
This sounds like the Bohmian pilot wave theory (which is a global formulation of QM). ... Which might be not that crazy, since spooky action at a distance is already a given. And in cosmology (or quantum gravity) some models are describing a region of space based only its surface. So in some sense the universe is much less information dense, than we think.
Absolutely man!! I've been trying to tell my neighbor this for ages. I keep taking shits on his lawn and he's getting all upset about it saying that it's ruining his lawn. I tell him I value questioning like a skeptic, something like a Socratic dialog. Kind of unfair to call me deluded just because he and many others have reached a conclusion long ago.
The hollow point is going to be far more devastating.
Back in the 90s around the times of the assault weapon ban, some gun group baited some people in the media by getting the media people to hype up how much more dangerous guns like the AK/AR were than 'safe' hunting rifles. They then got the media to go out to a range where they shot watermelons with assault rifles first, and the media bought in and was like "wow, look at that massive damage"
Then they shot a watermelon with a 300 winchester magnum hunting rifle... Pink mist.
It's not going to happen anytime soon. These language models take several bleeding edge GPU's to run at a reasonable performance. Vision to the likes of how humans perceive detail is another dimension of complexity. There have been groundbreaking advances in machine vision over the past 20 years, yet we still cannot build a robot that folds clothes efficiently [0]. Arguably, this is not only because of vision, but also dexterity, but both are currently of what a human can perform.
But if it happens, likely legislators will regulate AI. Most western governments already provide job procurement programs through being employed by them. Which is a good thing, but HN doesn't like to hear that. The reality is that most people need a job to feel fulfilled and be a healthy member of society. Which could change, but It's not going to happen until this technology falls into the hands of the common people instead of being controlled by large corporations.
It means the rich no longer needs the poor. If robots also replaces the military it means that the rich no longer needs to fear the poor. With both of those out of the equation things aren't looking great for the poor.
This does not even make the slightest sense, who cares about money when you can subjugate the masses in other ways. It is only a power game at this point.
And if most of the population becomes useless, why would any psychopath keep them around? I’m sure it can’t be that hard to exterminate most of the humanity.
Alternate take: Regulation should be turned up to 11 and AI should be nationalized so that the benefits go to society instead of a handful of billionaires
I don't think it should be nationalized. However, I do think the Treasury should just print the dollars, and buy OpenAI, etc and all profits go back to the American people.
