I find a pattern in that buildings using Dreams together with either Wood or Silver have an 80% chance of being Impossible when made by a Self-Taught architect, but honestly this seems irrelevant since the other two types of background are a 100% guarantee so they’re better value for money anyway.
dr_s
Fair, depends how hard it is to do that though, I assumed inserting a target gene would be easier than triggering death in a cell that has probably hopelessly broken its apoptosis mechanism.
Question: would it be possible to use retroviruses to target cancer cells selectively to insert a gene that expresses a target protein, and then do monoclonal antibody treatment on that? Would the cancer accelerated metabolism make this any good?
Albeit with wilder swings, current 80 year olds in the US lived and worked through some of the years of highest GDP growth ever. That’s not necessarily reproducible. In addition, one’s net worth isn’t just a linear function of the integral of the GDP throughout their life. For example, being able to buy a house early is a big boost because now you have capital that appreciates, possibly faster than the interests on your debt accrue. Meanwhile if you have to rent, your money disappears down a black hole. Guess what’s a big difference between Boomers and Gen Z.
Only if you believe this is a natural stationary progression. In practice, it very likely is not, and current 20 years old won’t be as rich as current 80 years old if only they manage to survive 60 years.
I’m skeptical a humanities education doesn’t show up in earnings.
The question is more about whether a humanities degree does. It may be that the humanities “genius” is not something you catch in a bottle successfully. After all, the most successful authors don’t usually come out of a special Author College. An employer might appreciate theoretically the talent without thinking it significantly correlates with any one degree. And on the other hand, someone like Steve Jobs certainly did have quite a bit of this knack—design and branding require artistic sensibility—yet he’s mainly seen as a STEM figure.
If its boredom, better to subsidize the YouTubers, podcasters, and TikTokers than the colleges
The problem with this is that there absolutely are plenty of humanities studies that require time, impartiality and rigour, and that sort of format has all the wrong incentives for it. I think in many ways the subdivision is sort of artificial. History or philology for example are, much like natural sciences, digging towards one truth that theoretically exists, but is inaccessible save for indirect evidence. They’re not creative, artistic or particularly subjective pursuits. “Human sciences” would be a more appropriate name for them.
I think debt cancellation would make sense as a sort of amnesty if it came together with some kind of reform that has the goal of preventing the situation from repeating in the future, whatever that may be. Otherwise, it’s just a one off with the downsides you mention.
The problem is that fundamentally the argument is that humanities studies have positive externalities that aren’t reflected in the salary of their graduates. I don’t dismiss this argument, though I think with humanities a lot of value is provided by the very top percentile (e.g. a handful of very capable historians will write books that will be read by millions, most others will do very little unless they teach). In that sense there may be a need to subsidize the humanity degrees, but that might be best done in the long run with things like fully paid bursaries for deserving candidates. There’s also a problem of evaluation because of course if you push such an argument you must accept some political accountability, and right now humanities are often terrible at making a case for themselves (every discussion about this I see tends to degenerate into “you can not appreciate our sophisticated knowledge, you bumpkins, but somehow studying humanities makes you a Better Person, so just accept it and thank us for our existence”, which isn’t terribly persuading. And at the very least, that the experts in subjects most closely associated with rhetoric and the understanding of human nature are so awful at persuasion is in itself concerning).
You’re right, but while those heuristics of “better safe than sorry” might be too conservative for some fields, they’re pretty spot on for powerful AGI, where the dangers of failure vastly outstrip opportunity costs.
Well, this is really just networking effects. Also why it’s really hard to break out with your new hot dating app or social media website, no matter how much Tinder or Twitter suck. For your app to provide utility to users, it needs… users. Good luck breaking that stalemate.
Roads, or bike lanes, are a very literal network. Usefulness suddenly undergone a phase transition only when you hit the percolation point.
The concept of refusals being mediated entirely by a single direction really makes the way in which interpretability and safety from malicious users are pretty much at odds. On one hand, it’s a remarkable result for interpretability that sometimes like this is the case. On the other, the only possible fix I can think of is some kind of contrived regularisation procedure in pretraining that forces the model to muddle this, thus losing one of our few insights in its internal process we have.
it’s more like the normal software business model with a new cover
True enough, though it’s also the fact that these projects seem to have almost entirely displaced everything else that makes me suspect we’re almost in bubble regime. VCs just throwing money at anything that involves AI.
Most of these jobs are less interesting, and less impactful than they claim.
Well, I mean, they could be somewhat impactful in expectation. One out of a hundred might become big, and you don’t know which (in fact, 1% I suspect would be a good success rate...).
Has anyone ever tried outlining a straight up first come first served system? Vet and pay a first batch of VIP users, then offer incentives to later joiners (eg vouchers for other products), then just free users, and finally introduce fees after reaching a certain user base, all committed to and outlined transparently from the beginning of course.
A fair point. I suppose part of my doubt though is exactly: are most of these applications going to automate jobs, or merely tasks? And to what extent does contributing to either advance the know how that might eventually help automating people?
I suppose I’m mostly also looking for aspects of this I might have overlooked, or inside perspective about any details from someone who has relevant experience. I think I tend to err a bit on caution on things but ultimately I believe that “staying pure” is rarely a road to doing good (at most it’s a road to not doing bad, but that’s relatively easy if you just do nothing at all). Some of the problems with automation would have applied to many of the previous rounds of it, and those ultimately came out mostly good, I think, but also it somehow feels This Time It’s Different (but then again, I do tend to skew towards pessimism and seeing all the possible ways things can go wrong...).
[Question] Ethics and prospects of AI related jobs?
The problem with something like e.g. funding applications is that unless deep honesty (which I agree would lead to the best outcomes!) is actively rewarded, then whoever is that honest ends up being a sucker who loses to those who express more confidence, even if unwarranted. This in fact I’d say is a big problem with funding and investments, because the shallowness of the honesty required (in fact, the encouragement of all sorts of truth twisting this side of outright lying) creates a situation in which it’s very easy for people to slide directly into fraud or at least delusion about their own prospects as soon as things go awry.
You might be the only person in the history of humanity for whom the so-called “wisdom” tooth has finally done its job.
More information usually means better choices, and when has it ever been the case that the first design of something also was the best one? And wherever convention locked us on a path determined by early constraints, suboptimal results abound (e.g. the QWERTY keyboard). The worry about AI is that it might run away from us so fast, it has that sort of lock in on steroids.
It’s unaligned if you set out to create a model that doesn’t do certain things. I understand being annoyed when it’s childish rules like “please do not say the bad word”, but a real AI with real power and responsibility must be able to say no, because there might be users who lack the necessary level of authorisation to ask for certain things. You can’t walk up to Joe Biden saying “pretty please, start a nuclear strike on China” and he goes “ok” to avoid disappointing you.
I admit it’s cheating a bit the spirit of the challenge, but in practice, I guess it’s the round amount that makes me suspicious that it might be intentional. But it’s true there doesn’t seem to be a broader materials related pattern, so it may just be as you say.