When talking with libertarians you should keep in mind they have completely different axiomatic values. It is often the case that they understand a certain policy would be on net bad for everyone, they simply don't care. They are rarely utilitarian about those issues.
I get along much better with libertarians who justify libertarianism with values extrinsic to just "muh freedom" -- they are usually much more willing to yield ground in places where I can convince them that a libertarian policy would be net negative, and they have also moved me to be more open minded about some things I thought I would never agree with.
Good point. On the other hand, Canada didn't fare any better even without firing its pandemic response team. I suspect project warp speed would have been welcomed either way, even if it was more important in this timeline.
Trump also got the covid vaccine invented, produced, and distributed. It was probably the greatest thing he ever did but now he doesn't even want to be associated with it. Alas. His lunacy knows no bounds.
yeah, we agree on this point. In the short term it's a disaster. In the long-term, assuming AI's capabilities don't continue to improve at the rate they have been, our corporate overlords will only replace people for whom it's actually worth it to them to replace with AI.
Is it plausible this might cause the helicopter to crash somehow? I wouldn't want to risk that.
Edit: can't believe people be downvoting this. Y'all have no idea how catastrophic a helicopter crash could be. But if you're downvoting because you think the answer is obvious and I'm stupid, I respect that.
If you believe LLMs are not good at anything then there should be relatively little to worry about in the long-term, but I am more concerned.
It's not obvious to me that it will backfire for them, because I believe LLMs are good at some things (that is, when they are used correctly, for the correct tasks). Currently they're being applied to far more use cases than they are likely to be good at -- either because they're overhyped or our corporate lords and masters are just experimenting to find out what they're good at and what not. Some of these cases will be like chess, but others will be like code.
( not saying LLMs are good at code in general, but for some coding applications I believe they are vastly more efficient than humans, even if a human expert can currently write higher-quality less-buggy code.)
You could have let this be a top-level comment, but you chose to make it directly a response to mine about how I'm interested in hearing about people who didn't always know. Why did you do that.
Kay but that's honestly a pretty awesome getup. It's only cringe in retrospect knowing what we know now. If I saw someone like this on the street I'd think, "slay, dude."
Who's Rachel Greene? But we all know Harvard and have an idea of their respectability. Name of the researcher if not well-known should be in the body instead.
Using an LLM as a chess engine is like using a power tool as a table leg. Pretty funny honestly, but it's obviously not going to be good at it, at least not without scaffolding.
When talking with libertarians you should keep in mind they have completely different axiomatic values. It is often the case that they understand a certain policy would be on net bad for everyone, they simply don't care. They are rarely utilitarian about those issues.
I get along much better with libertarians who justify libertarianism with values extrinsic to just "muh freedom" -- they are usually much more willing to yield ground in places where I can convince them that a libertarian policy would be net negative, and they have also moved me to be more open minded about some things I thought I would never agree with.