At a certain point intelligence is a loop that improves itself.
"Hmm, oral traditions are a pain in the ass lets write stuff down"
"Hmm, if I specialize in doing particular things and not having to worry about hunting my own food I get much better at it"
"Hmm, if I modify my own genes to increase intelligence..."
Also note that intelligence applies resource constraints against itself. Humans are a huge risk to other humans, hence the lack of intelligence over a smarter human can constrain ones resources.
Lastly, AI is in competition with itself. The best 'most intelligent' AI will get the most resources.
Thanks for the comment, it triggerred a few thought experiments for me.
For example, if you focus on oral traditions you experiment and create more poems, songs, etc. If you focus on preserving food you discover jams, dried meat, etc.
Is it useful to focus on everything, or global optimal? Is it possible?
Also regarding competition and evolution, what stopped humans to get more capable brains? Is it just resource constraints, like not having enough calories(not having mini nuclear reactor with us)? Or are there other, more interesting causes?
I don't agree with your premise at all so I don't think that the rest of it follows from it either. What evidence or reason do you have to bring me to accept that premise?
I wonder if those would be useful in identifying the potential contents of specific Marion Stokes tapes (my understanding is that they're sorted, but are only labeled with channel and date/time and are being archived slowly): https://libwww.freelibrary.org/blog/post/5393
Long story short, the sword was forged during the First Age by the famed Dwarven-smith Telchar of Nogrod -- later wielded by Elendil and shattered in the Battle of Dagorlad. Once this kid's dad gets around to reforging it, it will be known as Andúril.
The intersection between employers who demand to film you being in a chair and employers who shower their employees with substantial lucre is the null set.
I just watched a youtube video on how a person looking for editing jobs had some pretty poor working conditions with terrible pay. A very controlling boss, asking him to edit on an old x86 macbook because he was told it was 'for creators'. The guy mentioned he a beast machine at home he could edit remotely and the person told him "do you want to edit?". The boss would not even provide him a mouse-he had to edit by trackpad.
He walked out around noon. The boss asked him to come back for an extra $20 that day.
I doubt the jobs where you don't enjoy any level of trust are the ones where you get paid well or get any kind of dignified treatment.
I recently saw a job ad for a JavaScript specialist where the position entailed having screenshots and keyboard + mouse tracking to monitor your working hours. It was a freelancer position, so the hire would handle taxes and health insurance, no equipment would be provided and working hours would start at 08:00 German time sharp for at least nine hours or until you "finish the daily tasks". Pay would however be for 189 hours per month, no compensation for sick leave/holidays/vacation, and you'd be paid via upwork.com (with you paying Upwork's fees) in US dollars.
What is your point? We were discussing when pilots should be expected to be recorded in the cockpit for privacy vs safety. I mentioned there are software engineer jobs where you have to keep the camera on all day.
There are jobs where you are expected to keep the camera and there are programmers who accept those work terms.
Offhand, an understanding of the assembly and internal mechanics of a product from having built it would make me feel like I would be be more likely to be able to fix it if required.
Did this come to anything? Did you in fact talk to someone from P0 about Cloudflare lobbying the FTC over Tavis Ormandy's vulnerability research? Tavis just posted on the thread; did you get a chance to check that out?
