No they don't. It can also be that neither the government nor private parties give.
Making it an either/or often makes space for the individual to make excuses for why they don't share because out there somewhere there exists some government program that vaguely looks like charity.
> a significant part of the population seems to still think he is the literal Antichrist.
Beware that you don't fall into the trap of thinking the 1% of the population that makes 90% of the noise on the internet is "significant" or a representative sampling of the population. Most everyone else's views are quite boring and detached from extremism, they just don't shout their moderation on the rooftops.
Common street robbers want peace too. They want to rob you of your property as peacefully as possible. They very much want you to just surrender and let it happen.
Violence is usually conditional. It comes with instructions on how to avoid it. Let the criminal take your things and he won't shoot you. Let us take this territory and you won't be killed. If you surrender and submit to our rule, you will have your peace. It's just that the cost is your land, your economy, your freedom, your secuity, your dignity, your pride, your self-determination
The key fact about violence is nobody actually wants it. Everybody wants peace. At the same time, everybody also wants scarce resources that others are unwilling to just hand over to them. So they use the threat of violence to get what they want. Actual violence is risky and all bets are off once it escalates. Without the threat of violence though, why negotiate when you can just take?
So there's a lot of nuance to "peace". India cannot claim to want peace and then suspend a treaty that provides vital water resources to Pakistan. Pakistan cannot claim to want peace and at the same time support insurgency against India. All of these things will obviously escalate the situtation until it erupts into war.
I didn’t read it that way. I read it more that saying India is a peaceful nation is probably not the full truth. As a third party I always had the impression this was one of those tit for tat forever wars. Each attack there is usually an antagonist but over the whole course it’s muddy.
Sounds a little too much like, "It's not AGI today ergo it will never become AGI"
Does the current AI give productivity benefits to writing code? Probably. Do OpenAI engineers have exclusive access to more capable models that give them a greater productivity boost than others? Also probably.
If one exclusive group gets the benefit of developing AI with a 20% productivity boost compared to others, and they develop a 2.0 that grants them a 25% boost, then a 3.0 with a 30% boost, etc...
The question eventually becomes, "is AGI technically possible"; is there anything special about meat that cannot be reproduced on silicon? We will find AGI someday, and more than likely that discovery will be aided by the current technologies. It's the path here that matters, not the specific iteration of generative LLM tech we happen to be sitting on in May 2025.
> Does the current AI give productivity benefits to writing code? Probably.
> If one exclusive group gets the benefit of developing AI with a 20% productivity boost compared to others, and they develop a 2.0 that grants them a 25% boost, then a 3.0 with a 30% boost, etc...
That’s a bit of a stretch, generative AI is least capable of helping with novel code such as needed to make AGI.
If anything I’d expect companies working on generative AI to be at a significant disadvantage when trying to make AGI because they’re trying to leverage what they are already working on. That’s fine for incremental improvement, but companies rarely ride one wave of technology to the forefront of the next. Analog > digital photography, ICE > EV, coal mining > oil, etc.
The "novel AGI code" probably accounts for <5% of work by time spent. If they can reduce the remaining 95% of grunt work (wiring yet another DB query to a frontend, tweaking the build pipeline, automating GPU allocation scripts) then that means they can focus more on that 5%.
Then it looks like Company A spends 90% of time on novel research work (while LLMs do all the busy work) and Company B spends 5% of time on novel research work.
Just really think about what you just said, sure spend 5% of the time is on the bits nobody on earth has any idea how to accomplish that’s how people will approach this project. Organizationally the grunt work is a trivial rounding error vs the completely unbound we’ve got no idea how to solve this problems bits.
a) beaurocrats' real comms setups (3 telephones, four monitors all sitting on the desk – versus mounted on arms/wall) full of clutter and sitting on an anachronism of a wood desk
and b) what you'd see in any "spy" movie with dark-mode graphics displaying fancy l33t charts displayed on quad-monitor setups mounted on arms, probably in a low-light setting and the beaurocrat doesn't look at the "small" monitors himself, his cronies do that, the only monitor he looks at is the single 136" on the wall used for teleconferencing with villains
Minor thing that bugs the heck out of me: I can't login to Slack, it's a total outage for me, but on their status page [0] their copy says, "Something's not quite right."
In reality, there are probably folks freaking out internally at Slack with their hair on fire, and probably tens of thousands of people are locked out of their business comms. Saying "something is not quite right" trivializes and downplays the severity.
No! Something like, "We have a real problem" would be much more appropriate and not pretending like "oh it's no biggie, we'll take a look later."
I worked as a sysadmin during a major outage a few years ago. A bug completely destroyed a table in one of the customer databases; we had to restore/rebuild the table. It took hours. We reported it to our leadership; they handled the comms. When the message got translated and posted on the company's status page - well, it sounded like we were doing our customers a favor. Nothing said was technically untrue, but I was amazed at the spin from "We fucked up and we're working to fix it" to "We're doing this all for you; you're welcome". Ever since then I've been skeptical of status pages.
Yeah, and the incident details indicate call it "degraded functionality" when it seems broken for everyone across the board. Desktop app, website and mobile app all non-functional.
Oddly, my mobile app still has me logged in and seems to work, but the desktop app switched to its stupid 'oopsy daisy, something not quite right' screen on its own.
At a previous company that focused on small-business finance, we had an error page that said something like "We couldn't process your request, but we're working on it! In the meantime, here's a video of a puppy." with a link to a Youtube video of a puppy.
PEOPLE HATED THE PUPPY.
"I can't process SALES, i'm losing MONEY and you want to give me a VIDEO of a PUPPY?"
To be fair, their status page reported problems super early. It might even be automated. Usually you have to search Twitter for accurate information on outages.
It really didn't -- we (Slack customer and integration) had our first internal reports of issues at 09:59 ET and the status page was updated at 10:27. For this broad an impact, that's a long time.
Actually, the planes from both crashes were Bombardier, a Canadian company. The first one means operated by a US company and the second one refers to a crash in the US.
I believe the distinction the OP was making was foreign-owned/operated airline vs domestic. Makes a small difference, but not hufe, as all commericial pilots landing in the US must have an FAA ATP, and the same minimum flight hours as American pilots (though the quality of those hours and other training may vary).
No they don't. It can also be that neither the government nor private parties give.
Making it an either/or often makes space for the individual to make excuses for why they don't share because out there somewhere there exists some government program that vaguely looks like charity.
reply