Parking all your money in the bank is investing in currency. Depending on the currency it’s probably a lot safer than most stocks but there’s still an argument for diversification of aiming for as safe as possible.
Any company could do that. If it would make sense for them to do that would depend on the market they were entering though. At the time OpenAI came about companies weren't sharing (selling) AI to the world. Doing so was a point of differentiation. There's Google over there hoarding all of their AI for themselves. Here's us over here providing APIs and free chat interfaces to the general public.
So sure the name means nothing now in a market shaped by OpenAI, where everyone offers APIs and has chat interfaces. It doesn't mean it meant nothing when they picked it or that they abandoned the meaning. The landscape just changed.
Lucky you! It's some of the best content on the internet. My favourite blog for sure. Same guy has continued on with his writing at https://www.astralcodexten.com which is also pretty good but doesn't reach the same highs.
What's wrong with it in context though is that as great as it is, it's just some guys blog. It's disconcerting that people would be working on technology they think is more dangerous than nuclear weapons and basing their approach to safety on a random blog post.
Although it's disconcerting to think of a committee deciding how it's approached, or the general public, or AI loving researchers, so it might just be a disconcerting topic.
If OpenAI or just Ilya think Scott is the best man to have thinking about it though, I would have at least liked them to pay him to do it full time. Blogging isn't even Scott's full time job, and the majority of his stuff isn't even about AI.
nobody said thats the only argument Ilya had, but the points from scott alexander are legitimate and could be addressed even before hiring scott on or having an academic paper written.
The only option for AST expanding isn't just competing for Starlink's customers. There's also growing the market as a whole. Satellite internet is still a tiny market so there's a lot of potential there.
It's entirely possible for there to be more money in providing launch services to AST even if it kills off Starlink, IF it grows the market enough.
>And not only did everyone get the same thing, they got it at the same time. It's difficult to imagine now, but every night tens of millions of families would sit down together in front of their TV set watching the same show, at the same time, as their next door neighbors. What happens now with the Super Bowl used to happen every night. We were literally in sync.
I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who experienced that sameness compared to today's more fragmented media on if they think it changed anything from a social point of view. Shared experiences and interests are fertile ground for building relationships and it sounds like everyone generally shared a lot more.
It's more common water cooler talking points. Like the superbowl, the reality is, most people have shallow investment in the shared culture. You get proficient making small talk on popular topics that doesn't really matter on an individual level. Like how everyone is trained to talk about the weather, but they're not going to form many durable relationships off it. Unless they're genuinely interested, like football fans in superbowl. It's "time pass" topics, it's not nothing, but it's overstated. There's a reason why people jumped to communities that better aligned with individual interests as internet got more social, very people liked wasting their time on mediocre pop culture. Don't get me wrong, they exist in great numbers, but my feeling is still all this cultural commonality facilitates weak bonding among most people who would rather watch their niche interests on youtube given the chance than speculate on the last nights Xfiles.
Speaking as a millennial, I also think the syncness is overstated. It's always interesting when pre 90s generations reminisce about all these cultural consumption they had in common, but then realize they experienced them at different times. Access to media was not ubiquous pre internet, you either need disposable $$$ which many people didn't have, or need to have a hookup for bootleg. Many people can grow up hearing about HBO shows and didn't get to watch them until years later when file sharing proliferated. There is still a "vast" cultural common ground in the sense that... there actually wasn't so much content and what people remember / make effort to watch end up overlapping. Now there is legitimately so much broadcast media out there that I imagine it's hard to accidentally overlap. Something has been lost, but as someone who didn't like small talking about that stuff, but I am not sure that much.
A really big part of the bond between my girlfriend and me is that we are almost the same age, from similar families and had all the same TV and radio growing up. We actually have very different musical tastes, but we both know and like all the familiar stuff from the 90s.
I've had many relationships where we've been very different ages or grew up in different countries and it's surprising how much is missing from such a relationship. I could always tell this by observing former partners relish talking about this stuff on the occasion they meet someone in their own group. I, of course, couldn't join in.
The fragmentation started in the 90s, though. Already there were kids who had watched the football last night. Or they'd seen something American, like a film. These were available on subscription only TV (which I thought only rich families had, but, in fact, it was mostly families bad with money). More and more stuff went to paid TV, like cricket and boxing, that used to be available to all. Then you had kids who had inexplicably seen all of something like South Park despite it not being on any public channel. It steadily grew from there to the extent I wouldn't even be surprised if kids from non-football families don't know what Manchester United is, for example.
> I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who experienced that sameness compared to today's more fragmented media on if they think it changed anything from a social point of view. Shared experiences and interests are fertile ground for building relationships and it sounds like everyone generally shared a lot more.
I very much miss the shared social experience. In the 90s, you'd go to school on Monday and run down the latest X-Files episode. VCRs existed, but worst case you watched it later that night. Otherwise you missed out on the discussion.
Then the next week SNL did a parody and everyone got it because everyone saw the thing they were parodying.
Now that happens much less frequently. It still happens sometimes. When Wednesday came out, even people who hadn't seen the show knew what it was about. Same with Squid Games and Stranger Things.
The ratings share is what you want to look at. That roughly represents the percent of all households with TVs who watch a show. Look at the highest rated show for each year and what percent of people watch it.
Back in the day to be the highest rated, you had to be over 60%. Now a top rated non-sports show is maybe 10%.
Interestingly what I see now that I have my own kids is that they don't talk about scripted TV much at all -- they talk about video games and YouTube/tiktok videos that they all seem to have seen. So that seems to be where the social aspect is moving.
