Off topic, but why are you one of those people who do a full screen “subscribe to my mailing list” overlay? I never understand why you’d wanna do that.
Oh, many years ago I bought into the whole 'write a blog, collect subscribers, create a training product and sell it to them, retire on the beach' idea and gave it a go. I now think that's exceedingly unlikely, of course. Sorry you find it annoying, i'll have to get around to removing it sometime.
He gives reasons why it didn’t work for him. He gives 10 pillars of his personality, 4 of these pillars were standing due to his company ownership. You don’t need to have the exact same pillars, but you need to project it upon your own life and see how selling the company would effect your personality. Then consider it for yourself if it’s worth it.
I am hoping this gives publishers an important role of becoming the quality gatekeeper. The publisher has the relationship with the writer and ensures a certain level of quality. If a writer keeps coming up with nonsense (AI or not), they’ll cut ties. For me as someone who reads about 3-4 books a year, I don’t see an issue with this. It sucks for this indie market, but even before AI, someone had to plough through the shit.
Oh my God. I used to grab MIDI’s from here in my mid to late 90s game development days. This opened up a chamber in my brain that had been closed for 20+ years.
That’s like saying a sports game doesn’t need a referee because players should follow the rules. At times you perhaps don’t follow them as close because you’re too caught up. So it’s nice to have a party that oversees it.
Not an economist, but that does not sound bad in general. Best case you have several companies that: (a) have the knowledge to make sensible rulings and (b) have an interest that non of their direct competitors gain any unfair advantages.
The problem case is when the companies all have a backroom meeting and go "Hey, lets ask for regulation X that hurts us some... but hurts everyone else way more"
Economists actually shouldn't even be included in regulatory considerations in my opinion. If they are then regulators must be balancing the regulation that on its own seems necessary with the economic impact of proper regulation.
It hasn't worked for the airline industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or big tech to name a few. I don't think its wise for us to keep trying the same strategy.
If we actually create an AGI, it will view us much like we view other animals/insects/plants.
People often get wrapped up around an AGI's incentive structure and what intentions it will have, but IMO we have just as much chance of controlling it as wild rabbits have controlling humans.
It will be a massive leap in intelligence, likely with concepts and ways of understanding reality that either never considered or aren't capable of. Again, that's *if* we make an AGI not these LLM machine learning algorithms being paraded around as AI.
The assistant captains (usually called vices) on each team are the arbiters. It’s in one’s best interest to keep the game moving and not get bogged in frivolities, there’s a bit of a “tie goes to the runner” heuristic when deciding on violations.
In my years of curling, I’ve never seen a disagreement on rules left unsettled between the vices, but my understanding is that one would refer to vices on the neighboring sheets for their opinion, acting as a stand-in impartial authority. In Olympic level play I do believe there are referees to avoid this, but I really can’t overstate how unusual that is for any other curlers.
