If your countrymen want to use Uber, Air B&B, Oracle, and Facebook, should you try to stop them from doing it, even if you personally dislike those companies?
You are making the same argument that Trump is making with the tariffs. Personally, while I can see some good arguments for protectionism, I'd rather have the choice to decide whether or not I want to buy Chinese products, rather than the government making the choice for me.
Closer to the point: having Uber in a place with a licensed taxi trade is basically the same thing as removing licensing and then granting a monopoly on one business to operate taxis.
So you two are on completely separate frames of thought. One party sees it as a matter of choice, the other sees it as removing choice because one party has a monopoly on avoiding the regulations.
The issue here is IMO more so that the taxi driver should be able to operate a taxi business without a license without having to go through Uber. Ultimately what is happening in a lot of places is the guys with medallions will basically use agents of the state to violently enforce their racket (which Uber breaks up, but then monopolizes), or alternatively in some places in Latin America the entrenched taxi drivers will simply shoot to kill their competitors that don't have cartel sanctioned 'medallions.'
Do some research on why these services are so attractive before you give your opinion on it being a good thing. What these companies are doing should be illegal under US law as well, but they have paid your president to make that issue go away.
I personally think that FB, Uber, RBNB, Oracle, Google, Amazon, and literally every american SASS should be completely forbidden from Europe. Period no discussion at all. Given the state of current America, given the reactions even on this very post that do not see how Cambridge Analytics has damaged the entire world - yes, I think it would be safe to put a good 10 year ban on every US web tech. It would fasten up Europe and leave out the important decision to someone who can actually make a difference instead of being washed out by some reddit / twitter with fake russian bots. Let the economics just move away and make the decisions for people who are in a state of hypnosis instead of playing with mass control and then calling it "freedom".
Keep your american movies and social networks please. Btw why is TikTok banned in US?
Yes I do - for example ; any American that wishes to make a company in Europe will need to have a European voucher which is the owner of the service - so the money doesn't flow out of the country trough some UberMornonization app with $millions to ultimately do colonization.
There is 0 reason for us to let american suck away important infrastructure tools, benefits that goes with it, or even benefit from tax exemption trough the best company framework there can possibly exist.
I still haven't got an answer here - why is TikTok US owned ?
I *personally* have a freaking orchestrator, mail server, git server, faster than rocksdb DATABASE ENGINE, freaking world of warcraft and faster than NGINX for static. It's cute that you think you have the capabilities to imagine what Europe can or cannot do.
We've got plenty of servers, electricity, network hardware and people who code. We are missing the oxygen in the room, which American services all collectively sucked out. Banning those services will open some potential for innovation.
I think what your missing is a regulatory framework that wont immediately screw you. Just look at how far behind you are with AI. AI is nascent so you have no excuse about "oxygen" or whatever.
If the transcript is accurate, Karpathy does not actually ever, in this interview, say that AGI is a decade away, or make any concrete claims about how far away AGI is. Patel's title is misleading.
Hmm good point. I skimmed the transcript looking for an accurate, representative quote that we could use in the title above. I couldn't exactly find one (within HN's 80 char limit), so I cobbled together "It will take a decade to get agents to work", which is at least closer to what Karpathy actually said.
If anyone can suggest a more accurate and representative title, we can change it again.
Edit: I thought of using "For now, autocomplete is my sweet spot", which has the advantage of being an exact quote; but it's probably not clear enough.
Edit 2: I changed it to "It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents" because that's closer to the transcript.
Anybody have a better idea? Help the cause of accuracy out here!
It's a good suggestion, but where the 'autocomplete' quote is scoped too narrowly, this one is maybe scoped too broadly. Neither really represent what the article is about.
Oh that's clear, and the submitter didn't do anything wrong. It's just that on HN the idea is to find a different title when the article's own title is misleading or linkbait (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
The best way to do that of course is to find a more representative phrase from the article itself. That's almost always possible but I couldn't quite swing it in this case.
dang!! I have so much respect for this ironic situation where we are discussing the superpowers of AI while a very human, very decent being ponders deeply on how to compose a few words to make a suitable title.
Please can we have a future world where such events can always happen every so often.
>They don't have enough intelligence, they're not multimodal enough, they can't do computer use and all this stuff. They don't do a lot of the things you've alluded to earlier. They don't have continual learning. You can't just tell them something and they'll remember it. They're cognitively lacking and it's just not working.
>It will take about a decade to work through all of those issues. (2:20)
"The scalable method is you learn from experience. You try things, you see what works. No one has to tell you. First of all, you have a goal. Without a goal, there’s no sense of right or wrong or better or worse. Large language models are trying to get by without having a goal or a sense of better or worse. That’s just exactly starting in the wrong place."
and a bunch of similar things implying LLMs have no hope of reaching AGI
Please don't cross into personal attack. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Edit: please don't edit comments to change their meaning once someone has replied. It's unfair to repliers whose comments no longer make sense, and it's unfair to readers who can no longer understand the thread. It's fine, of course, to add to an existing comment in such a case, e.g. by saying "Edit:" or some such and then adding what else you want to say.
How is that genocide? No one is being killed, no culture is being erased, no community is being wiped out. People might be persuaded to change their viewpoints but they are not forced to or sent to re-education camps.
This seems identical to saying that convincing someone with anorexia that they aren't overweight is "social death", and "social death" is (somehow) genocide.
To say nothing of using the same word as what happened in the holocaust or to the Armenians or native Americans or Rwanda or is happening in Xinjiang....
dysphoria is certainly a mental illness, transitioning is merely one possible treatment for it (though, pushed as one of the first rather than as one of the last options, which I personally find concerning.)
Being gay is not generally recognised as mental illness, although it has been in the past. Being trans is less well defined (historically even being gay was not well defined, or defined the same way).
I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Just imagine the difference in the level of fear that you would feel about 1) getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power, vs. 2) getting up in a public square in Russia and yelling that Putin is a terrible person who should be removed from power.
> getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power
I think lot of people I know would feel concerned about what might happen to them if they did that right about now. I don't pretend to know anything about you, but it might be worth examining whether the level of concern you expect people would have about this might vary quite between people with different circumstances than yours. At least to me, it seems pretty likely that if a country were to slide into authoritarianism, not everyone would feel the effects equally all at once, so the fact that you haven't felt a change in your level of concern about this doesn't necessarily mean that a shift isn't happening.
To be clear, I'm definitively not saying that it's impossible for anyone to know whether it's happening or not because we can't know the experience of literally everyone, or that I'm 100% positive what we're experiencing will end up in undeniable strict authoritarianism for everyone. My point is that I do think there's been a genuine shift in how safe a large number of people feel from persecution in the past year and a half that's based on things happening to them or people in similar circumstances to them. It's certainly possible that I'm in a bubble where I'm associating with a lot more people than average who have these concerns, but the reverse is equally true for someone who hasn't been noticing these things, and I do think there's sufficient evidence that the concerns are real. The implicit assumption that everyone feels equally comfortable in their rights protecting them just isn't something that seems accurate right now.
If I did that, I would expect that I would get some dirty looks. I might get yelled at. I might even get beaten up (by private individuals, not by the authorities). The cops might come by and cite me for disturbing the peace.
I would not be disappeared. I would not be charged with a felony. I would not be imprisoned for years or decades.
And, where the rubber meets the road for my personal mental health: I can say what I think to my friends and family. They may disagree. They may even argue. They're not going to report me to the secret police, nor are there secret police waiting for someone to report something.
A lot has changed since January. You absolutely should worry about being disappeared, and about your family and friends ratting you to ICE/FBI/etc (the distinction is moot under the unitary executive theory under which our new regime operates). It may be unlikely today, for you specifically (assuming you're someone from a favored ethnicity and class, espouse only political views within the range of acceptable orthodoxy, etc), but your immigrant/trans/pro-palestine neighbors are not as safe as you are, and the window of acceptable types of American is narrowing.
> It may be unlikely today, for you specifically (assuming you're someone from a favored ethnicity and class, espouse only political views within the range of acceptable orthodoxy, etc), but your immigrant/trans/pro-palestine neighbors are not as safe as you are, and the window of acceptable types of American is narrowing.
Thank you, that's a much more concise way of stating exactly what I meant
In the 90's, DARE got kids to narc on their parents for drug related crimes. You can discount that as being drug related and oh just don't do drugs, but let's not pretend you're not gonna get reported to the unsecret police called the DEA or the FBI if it would be sufficiently to your friends and family's benefit.
Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions, and I would have very little to no fear about going to Washington DC right now, standing up on a podium, and yelling that Trump sucks while there are 100 National Guardsmen across the street from me.
This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
See Mahmoud Khalil's case. They're trying to and would continue to have done so if they weren't blocked. What is there stopping them from changing the rules and doing it again?
they fact that you know about this case at all and how much it has been in the news and the outrage and protest against the executive branch speaks volumes to the differences between the US and real authoritarian regimes.
I disagree with what has been done in the Mahmoud Khalil matter. But it is a far distance between that on the one hand and what happens in places like Russia on the other.
I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.
Have you decided what your personal red line is after which you would conclude that we've entered an authoritarian regime? Have we crossed the neofascist Rubicon yet? [1]
The distance is closing, it's already closer than many Americans would have considered possible. How close does it need to get before we should be concerned?
Blacks were once slaves. Women couldn't vote. Japanese-Americans were put in camps. Worker strikes were met with guards killing people. Rousevelt had amassed all kinds of extra executive powers and control of all aspects of government that would seem over the top excessive before him.
Is today really "closer than many Americans would have considered possible"?
I'm already somewhat concerned. I've been concerned since long before Trump. And Trump has added some new concerns. For example, with that strike against the Venezualan boat today. But that doesn't mean that I believe that we're anywhere actually close to it. Those are two separate questions.
People really should try to understand that if someone says "I think that the US is vastly freer than Russia", it does not mean "I think that there is no reason for concern" or "I think that the US is going in a good direction".
> Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions
Not yet? Currently, they are only imprisoning and deporting legal permanent residents and people on student visas for their political opinions. But denaturalization is clearly on the table.
I'm happy for you as a privileged US citizen, enjoying your privilege as someone who's at least currently on the right side of the line, but anyone who's a legal immigrant doesn't feel anywhere near the same degree of security that you do.
The administration recently announced that it will review the visas of 55 million immigrants, and factors like political opinion are on the table when it comes to their choice of who to go after.
"First They Came"[1] was written to try to wake up people like you, whose privilege blinded them to the significance of the events around them. You need to start paying attention before you lose the country you thought you knew.
Go do it then. See if you can get a permit in DC right now to have a rally and shout that Trump sucks. If you can, try actually doing it. You will not be doing it for very long until some excuse is made to stop you and punish you.
It's exactly these comments the OP is talking about. This is what they are trying to do, what they said they would do, and it's the kind of authoritarian shit that Trump has publicly praised and envied Putin for.
Headline: "OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman says in 10 years’ time college graduates will be working ‘some completely new, exciting, super well-paid’ job in space".
Actual Altman quote: "In 2035, that graduating college student, if they still go to college at all, could very well be leaving on a mission to explore the solar system on a spaceship in some completely new, exciting, super well-paid, super interesting job".
The premise of the article might just be nonsense.
How many rationalists are there in the world? Of course it depends on what you mean by rationalist, but I'd guess that there are probably several tens of thousands, at very least, people in the world who either consider themselves rationalists or are involved with the rationalist community.
With such numbers, is it surprising that there would be half a dozen or so small cults?
There are certainly some cult-like aspects to certain parts of the rationalist community, and I think that those are interesting to explore, but come on, this article doesn't even bother to establish that its title is justified.
To the extent that rationalism does have some cult-like aspects, I think a lot of it is because it tends to attract smart people who are deficient in the ability to use avenues other than abstract thinking to comprehend reality and who enjoy making loosely justified imaginative leaps of thought while overestimating their own abilities to model reality. The fact that a huge fraction of rationalists are sci-fi fans is not a coincidence.
But again, one should first establish that there is anything actually unusual about the number of cults in the rationalist community. Otherwise this is rather silly.
I mean, I personally find the idea of rolling back women's rights to be repellent, but arguments should not be judged based on whether or not the author feels compelled to make them anonymously. In history, there have been plenty of true and justifiable things said anonymously because the people saying them were worried about being persecuted for their opinions.
You are ensuring that we do not invert the causal order: i.e. keep the order that it is a bad argument, then, conjecture about why one would offer one. The community appreciates that.
Not only does South Korea have a huge technology advantage over North Korea, but South Korea could also easily build nuclear weapons if it wanted to. It would probably not be at risk of losing a war to North Korea even if its population dropped to 10 million.
