And I finally figured out how to get links to answers instead of just inlining the content as before. Anyways, there it is. We live in a time where questions like "Does inference or training use more compute?" can be answered quickly by just pasting it into a search box.
Who needs censorship when you have an algorithm to feed people what you want them to see and you've self-selected for only people who aren't morally opposed to the new site?
Don't be fooled into thinking you're getting a dose of unfiltered reality on X.
>Who needs censorship when you have an algorithm to feed people what you want them to see and you've self-selected for only people who aren't morally opposed to the new site?
It feeds you what you engage with, and it changes surprisingly quickly. It caught onto my ARC raiders interest almost instantly. I engaged with a Portuguese post once, and now I get wonderful translated posts in Spanish, French, and Arabic too.
>Don't be fooled into thinking you're getting a dose of unfiltered reality on X.
What evidence could you possibly have that I'm not? There's lots of "politically incorrect" things which is a symptom of low filtration. Besides, you can't have seen my feed. Completely baseless allegation. So what's the real reason for taking the anti-X stance?
> There's lots of "politically incorrect" things which is a symptom of low filtration.
Politically incorrect things might be a symptom of low filtration on almost any other site, but not one run by Elon Musk. He has a clear agenda and is not shy about putting his finger on the scale at X. It's so blatant and well documented that it's almost hard to imagine you could be commenting in good faith.
>Politically incorrect things might be a symptom of low filtration on almost any other site,
Why would that change anything? I've always found political incorrectness to be a symptom of free speech.
>but not one run by Elon Musk.
Why would that be any different? Same symptom. Same free speech as far as I can tell.
>He has a clear agenda
What's the agenda?
>is not shy about putting his finger on the scale at X.
What instances of him putting his finger on the scale do you have? He gets community noted hilariously often.
>It's so blatant
What makes it blatant?
>well documented
By people who clearly hate the man and have lost their ability to reason over it. Like the ones who lost the narrative control of twitter.
>it's almost hard to imagine you could be commenting in good faith.
Having different opinions than you isn't bad faith. I brought up that the censorship is better than before (but still not great), and mentioned some cool new developments I've seen. You've attempted to steer the conversation to be about Elon Musk or myself. These are both ad hominem attacks, which is textbook bad faith.
And in every case there are people like you making excuses for them. Engineers working at OpenAI are not scraping by to provide for their families. They don't get a pass to do unethical things to keep their jobs.
> I think the real threat is that if you tip the Iranian conflict over into asymmetrical warfare
We're there already. We've been there. There's nothing symmetrical about this war.
Israel is basically unscathed in this war despite Iran launching barrages of missiles and drones. They were already fighting Israel asymmetrically by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. They knew they could never fight a fair war against the US and Israel.
Not OP, but my understanding is that voting for politicians who prioritize more sustainable policies and advocating for industry regulation to cut down on things like single-use plastics (or promoting EV use/infrastructure build outs) has a much bigger impact than recycling or not flying.
I (unfortunately) just don't think it's pragmatic/reasonable to expect enough people to make personal sacrifices/reduce QOL to make a dent. It's a tragedy of the commons, and we need some form of reasonable regulation to cut down on the worst offenders (probably carbon taxes) while we invest heavily in improving the technology so it makes financial sense to switch.
Renewables have come so far in the past decade and are now competitive with fossil fuels in terms of pricing. As the technology continues to become more efficient and cheaper, we'll likely start to see significant drops in emissions in addition to cheaper energy.*
*Assuming the US elects a rational adult to the presidency in 2028.
How is an author fairly compensated when you torrent their book? Should we just stop paying for media because it's infinitely reproducible?
Nothing physical is being stolen when a company makes a clone of a product based on another company's designs, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have patent laws.
The author is not fairly compensated in that case, but if you buy the book, he is. If you bought books and learned to code from them and then went on to go found a startup that ended up being worth billions, you don't owe that author one dollar more than you already paid him when you bought his book. That's more like the AI case here.
Purely anecdotal I know of a fair few creatives who ultimately are just happy people enjoy their works and don't really care how they're getting it. I understand that's a privileged attitude in the current world as they are all living relatively comfortable lives but at least philosophically I agree with it. We as humans have done a lot to reduce scarcity for a great deal many things but we still cling to it as an idea because of stubbornness and greed.
Maybe I'll get labeled a 'commie' for saying all this but I think we create a world where everyones needs are met and things(information & media are the easiest imo) are freely available. Thinking we can't do this is a bit of a disservice to the capabilities of humans.
This assumes that what's holding back solving hard problems is designing experiments to get novel data. Einstein's though experiments were very productive despite not taking place in a lab.
Nearly the entirety of the theory had already been laid out before Einstein.
Lorenz transforms contain the length contraction and local time, Poincaré had already written about E=mc^2 for radiation, he'd also set out the idea of relativity. All this before 1905.
Einstein's revolution was in turning that patchwork into a self contained theory with a couple postulates.
He had all the data he could want most of it from decades earlier.
We have approximately 0 experimental evidence at the GR/QFT boundary.
The best we have is Hawkings radiation something we currently can't possibly observe experimentally.
If we wanted to study the GR/QFT with a particle accelerator it would need to be the size of the Milky Way.
Again, this is all assuming that we have formulated the problem correctly. So much of the value of experiments in solving hard problems is not so much the results, but in how those results steer the formulation of a theory. It's hard to know how much evidence we might already have for resolving GR/QFT without the benefit of hindsight.
reply