cynicalpeace

7 ms·

1.
by cynicalpeace 1mo ago
I'm not convinced text is more modifiable and extensible than straight bits for a "superintelligence" The benefit would be that the AI would have true hardware access. It would be unconstrained by gatekeeper protocols. Would
2.
by cynicalpeace 1mo ago
when the model predicts the next token, it doesn't predict the next bit. I'm saying, eventually, it will... perhaps :)
3.
by cynicalpeace 1mo ago
i think the main blocker to this are the owners of the App Stores themselves. Apple won't let this happen if it can help it.
4.
by cynicalpeace 1mo ago
token efficiency could become irrelevant in the long term
5.
by cynicalpeace 1mo ago
Scams are bad. But cold-calling selling a genuine B2B product is a beautiful right-of-passage for anyone doing sales. Teaches you grit, rejection, tonality, relationship-building, and the elation of closing a sale all-in-one. It's also
6.
by cynicalpeace 1mo ago
I've long suspected that LLMs will just output pure bits eventually
7.
by cynicalpeace 2mo ago
Regardless of the content on the screen, the screen time is bad for kids. Even desiring pixel-represented "data" for this fact that is obviously observable irl is itself perhaps a result of excessive screen-time, leading to spread
8.
by cynicalpeace 2mo ago
The fastest, most surefire way to nuke your child's brain is to give them a screen. There is certainly room for software to design a curriculum for the parent or teacher to use. We have tried (and failed) to find such a thing for our h
9.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
parent-to-parent: this is slippery slope territory just imo, I can't control you. God bless your family :)
10.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
"Don't take away agency!" proceeds to recommend the government take away agency the best thing that can be done right now, rather than waiting for a broken government to fix our problems, is to admit to ourselves and parent
11.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
"don't do drugs, kids" is essentially my message, do you agree or not? idc how potentially beneficial screens may be, in the future (now?) we will start treating screens like smoking Some of us are still in the "smoking
12.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
The best defense is to not introduce it to them. not a perfect defense, but a very good one.
13.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
"If we can make cocaine healthier for everyone, that's a big deal" technically true, but also, don't use cocaine. I get parents use it to babysit their kids. That's bad parenting. I'm a parent. I know it's
14.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
"rural homeschooling Christians" Hey i like that!
15.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
Hm, what do you mean by "extremely limited and supervised"? I think absolute 0 is best for as long as possible. If you never introduce them to the drug, they'll never have the craving for it. That's obviously difficult,
16.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
Actually, you can. If parents are somehow powerless by the time their kids achieve some independence, again, that's bad parenting.
17.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
yes, several, lmao
18.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
kids simply shouldn't be looking at a screen, AI-generated or not. Screen time for kids (and adults for that matter!) should be way way scaled back. That falls on the parents. Bad parents give their kids phones and tablets and that&#x2
19.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
This is what's called "Majoring in the Minors" in Christianity. Neanderthals are no longer around. What's important is treating humans with a special dignity. If you start equating humans with anything else, like plants
20.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
Mainstream Christian thought has only permitted humans to be imago dei. Animals, plants, and objects made by humans, like computers, certainly do not qualify. There is the open question of extraterrestrial lifeforms, however. Ray Bradbury&#
21.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
The low point of Christianity after the council of Nicaea was the "Dark Ages" (early middle ages) and the high point is circa 2000. The exact opposite of what we tend to think.
22.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
Culpability is and always will be the limiting factor in AI adoption. As humans, we need another human to blame when things go wrong. Especially in situations that are catastrophic when things go wrong.
23.
by cynicalpeace 4mo ago
"For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discou
24.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
Again, that is a simple observation of fact. No counterfactual needed. I said it had confounding factors, and I offered hypotheses I asked you for alternative hypotheses and you've offered none.
25.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
I'm not even proposing that growth would have been higher without "technology". I said information technology has not increased productivity growth compared to the past. This is an observation of fact.
26.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
There is no counterfactual needed. Productivity growth has declined, despite the expectation that software would accelerate productivity. I'm asking you why this didn't happen.
27.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
The data clearly shows that productivity growth is flat or even declining. What is your accounting of why software hasn't offset those numbers?
28.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
Productivity growth. If you take rolling averages from this chart, it clearly demonstrate higher productivity growth before the adoption of software. This is a well established fact in econ circles. https://fred.stlouisfed.org&#x
29.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper. Of course, there could be many confounding factors, but there are also many reasons why this could be so. Just a few hypotheses: - Pen and paper become a limit
30.
by cynicalpeace 5mo ago
It's a hypothesis that "smarter" AI models, ie GPT-5.5, may not be a great boon to productivity. Given that this is the raison d'etre of AI models, and improving them, I don't see why it is any less useful than an

More ›