There are various levels of self deception that almost everyone subscribes to.
A pretty high level one is that our jobs are meaningfully making a positive difference in the world, when in fact, most white collar jobs are just producing bullshit to grease the corporate wheels of modern society. Most people don't like to admit that though, so we tell ourselves little lies and go along with the corporate narrative. That's what you experienced.
But it goes deeper the more truthful you try to be. Down near the bottom of this pile of self deception is that humans are making the world a better place, when in fact we're ruining the world, causing environmental damage at an unprecedented rate in geological history, all the while exhausting the readily-accessible non-renewable resources, like hydrocarbons and minerals, that'll make the chance of a better future civilization on Earth highly unlikely.
This is a bit of weird article. On one hand, I understand what they're getting at: AI is a transformative technology, but the people whose lives will be most transformed aren't included in the conversation. On the other hand... of course that's how it is while AI is in the hands of literal profit seeking corporations. That won't change until the labs are nationalised under a government that cares about its citizens' wellbeing. One might counter that a good corporation will listen to its customers, but that has never been the case for powerful technologies with real costs for users to not adopt them.
The article is talking more about people like translators being replaced by AI translation. I don't think any of the labs have a department of making it worse so it can't do people's jobs.
The normal way of dealing with tech doing peoples jobs is to help them get different jobs. I've got a translator friend who did a government paid course to train as a tour guide - that sort of thing.
Dario and Demis have called for nationalisation at some point. They know if AI reaches what they believe its potential to be, it needs to be democratically governed. It will upend the markets, but AI already threatens to do that. It feels like wishful thinking given how entrenched we are in neoliberalism, but it makes sense.
In the mean time there are various avenues of regulation and redistribution to lessen the effects, including retraining programs, though that job creation will keep pace with job losses is a big unknown.
You lead with "Moreover, it is an optimal algorithm that minimizes state estimation uncertainty." By the end of the tutorial I understood what this meant, but "optimal algorithm" is a vague term I am unfamiliar with (despite using Kalman Filters in my work). It might help to expand on the term briefly before diving into the math, since IIUC it's the key characteristic of the method.
That's a good point. "Optimal" in this context means that, under the standard assumptions (linear system, Gaussian noise, correct model), the Kalman Filter minimizes the estimation error covariance. In other words, it provides the minimum-variance estimate among all linear unbiased estimators.
You're right that the term can feel vague without that context. I’ll consider adding a short clarification earlier in the introduction to make this clearer before diving into the math. Thanks for the suggestion.
I love all these. I'd add Blightsight by Peter Watts to the list. It has the creepy, psychological bent of Annihilation combined with the hard science elements common to qntm's, Neal Stephenson's and Greg Egan's books.
Would love to find more books like Blindsight, something about the way it described agency without consciousness was both creepy and extremely memorable.
Blindsight was great. I had such high hopes for their follow up novel Echopraxia, but sadly it felt rushed and under-edited, but the ideas were spectacular.
Where I thought this was going: entering the Brand Age of AI. LLMs become commoditized, so the big labs increasingly focus on marketing and rhetoric to maintain market share. See the Anthropic spat with DoD (though I do applaud them for that, whatever their motivations).
Ditto. I kept waiting for the AI comparison. My interpretation was less agentic coding than the commodification of LLMs, forcing Anthropic and OpenAI into a pivot to focus on brand. Anthropic's spat with the DoD could be viewed through that lens: losing money on a deal to better position the brand.
It's only effective if "Children's devices are almost always set up by parents", which is a big assumption. My parents were about as tech savvy as you could reasonably expect but I still got away with buying R-rated video games and such. Kids are persistent and the dangers aren't always obvious.
If kids are being persistent and the parent is indifferent to it, then online age verification won't be effective either. Children will just ask mom and dad to verify their Roblox and Discord accounts.
For sure, I'm not blanket supporting age verification technology. Just saying the alternative proposed by the parent commenter isn't very reliable either.
Both. The same as for other materials we don't want kids to access, like alcohol. We can't expect parents to always be watching their kids. That's not how societies have ever worked.
But what I'm actually questioning in my comment above is effectiveness of the technology solution proposed at the device level.
It's effective insofar as the parents secure the device. If it's a general purpose computer, and the parent forgets to lock the bios, kids will just live boot into Ubuntu or some other OS and do as they please.
Or they may install keyloggers (including hardware loggers) to get the parents' password and then go update their account.
Certainly this may help hinder them, but it won't take long for them to learn the basics of curcumvention, and the cost is regulated speech for OS manufacturers.
A pretty high level one is that our jobs are meaningfully making a positive difference in the world, when in fact, most white collar jobs are just producing bullshit to grease the corporate wheels of modern society. Most people don't like to admit that though, so we tell ourselves little lies and go along with the corporate narrative. That's what you experienced.
But it goes deeper the more truthful you try to be. Down near the bottom of this pile of self deception is that humans are making the world a better place, when in fact we're ruining the world, causing environmental damage at an unprecedented rate in geological history, all the while exhausting the readily-accessible non-renewable resources, like hydrocarbons and minerals, that'll make the chance of a better future civilization on Earth highly unlikely.
reply