timr

5 ms·

1.
The case for AI doom isn't convincing(understandingai.org)
3 points by timr 2d ago|0 comments
2.
Who Aligns the Aligners?(prestonbyrne.com)
68 points by timr 2d ago|99 comments
3.
by timr 4d ago
I don’t know if you’re being facetious, but last time I checked, the world had not been destroyed by glob thermonuclear war. So yeah, it has worked.
4.
by timr 5d ago
nono...it's "combined with a form of fusion", you see, so it's obviously based in science. People obviously know this stuff is absurd on some level, but it doesn't stop them from cherry-picking the parts they "
5.
by timr 5d ago
Read more sci-fi. The dystopian takes are not the only ones. They're not even the majority. Pick up an Asimov book in the Robot series, or any number of novels written by lesser authors in the 1950s. Fiction reflects broader societal a
6.
by timr 5d ago
True!
7.
by timr 5d ago
See my comment on the sibling thread. This take has been repeatedly claimed online, but nobody brings any evidence other than fanfic. Ironically, if you ask Google, the Gemini Annoyance AI [1] confidently asserts that what you're say
8.
by timr 5d ago
No: https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/1qatv42/is_it_your_... There is some stuff online suggesting that the original script had that angle, but the movies did not, and AFAICT it's fanfic. We
9.
by timr 5d ago
The compute in the Matrix wasn't handled with human brains. They used the bodies to generate energy, and kept the brains occupied with the simulation so they wouldn't reject the pods. It doesn't make any sense, of course, be
10.
by timr 5d ago
I don't know. But since we're talking about fiction, pretty much any answer is valid.
11.
by timr 5d ago
Obviously the doomers will tell you that the future looks like the Matrix, because most of what they predict is based on extrapolation from sci fi movies.
12.
by timr 7d ago
> Obtaining the knowledge is a process of trial and error, bruteforce, observation, search, etc. Humans follow that same process. Machines can do that too. If they discover or are taught the same heuristics humans use, and a computationa
13.
by timr 8d ago
Yes, you were guessing. That's the only thing you could be doing, since, as you said, nobody actually knows.
14.
by timr 8d ago
> There's nothing that AI won't be able to mine and accomplish (aside from being literally human), it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. Sure there is: problems that require knowledge that simply doesn&#x
15.
by timr 8d ago
> We don't have enough accurate knowledge to say that, and it doesn't seem to be the case at all. The first part of your sentence literally contradicts the second part: "we don't have enough knowledge to know, but I k
16.
by timr 10d ago
No. They don't. Every day I see huge numbers of people in lace up oxfords, high heels, and more. And no, people don't ruin their expensive shoes by crushing the heel cups. People do that for cheap shoes, sure, and professionals
17.
by timr 11d ago
OP here. The steel-man argument for React is not that it is faster at rendering. It cannot be , because it ultimately relies on the same DOM that everyone else does to do the job, and it has to set up a massive JS data structure to do
18.
by timr 12d ago
> It's idiotic that things like memory layout and bit-level hardware management are done in C abstractions. I guarantee that if we stopped doing this kind of stuff, compiler optimizations wouldn't matter. Cute, but no, not even
19.
by timr 12d ago
That's largely because a lot of developers have made the devil's bargain of replacing standard web stuff with badly re-implemented JS versions of same. People did it because they could , but never considered if they should . Se
20.
by timr 13d ago
Yes. It’s one of the best coding models right now. Highly recommend.
21.
by timr 16d ago
This isn't responsive to the parent's question, in a way that ironically underscores the point: you can tell me that "1 in 50 patients experience X", but that's meaningless, unless I know what X is in the selected p
22.
by timr 17d ago
> I never wrote it hides the debt Hm? > > The carry trade hides a lot of US debt, too. Your comment. Anyway, have a nice day.
23.
by timr 17d ago
The carry trade does not hide public US debt. The US Treasury is concerned about Japan because it’s like the first or second largest holder of Treasuries in the world. > If the US is not trying to defend the US dollar, why'd they us
24.
by timr 17d ago
It’s true that the carry trade unwinding suddenly would be…traumatic (and debatably the root cause of the rate spike that killed SVB a few years ago), but it could be managed gradually, and must be done to bring Japan back from the brin
25.
by timr 17d ago
Well, hopefully they’ve been smarter than the US about managing bond duration, but yeah. Doesn’t change reality in the currency markets, and sometimes you have to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. The US has the same problem.
26.
by timr 17d ago
Yes, my bad. I got in the bad habit of referring to it like the ECB. > It's expected for the BoJ to raise the rate to 1.25% in 2 weeks. Cool. Only like four hundred basis points to go!
27.
by timr 17d ago
It’s pointless. Setting money on fire to avoid the inevitable. Since Bessent did what he did the whole issue has been swallowed up in the idiotic partisan maw of US politics, but it’s just a self-defeating effort by Japan to fight the marke
28.
by timr 17d ago
The BoJ has to raise rates. Dumping Dollars to buy Yen is spitting in the wind.
29.
by timr 17d ago
No. Not everyone boils everything down to a sophomoric take.
30.
by timr 17d ago
No, but it's so vague that it's meaningless.

More ›