jsnider3

The time for an AI pause has passed. Asking people not to race to the finish line is reasonable when the finish line is very far away and people don't know where it is, but not when it's the obvious next step on their current path.

Women have existed for much longer than modern politics.

Do you have an actual counter to the simulation argument or are you just dismissing it out of hand?

I love this, such a cute little guy.

Whatever standard of code quality you want, if it hasn't reached it yet, it will get there very soon.

Renewables solves this.

It seems that this was deleted, possibly because the book is still embargoed?

Then it should be easy for you to make an aligned AI, right? Can I see it?

I believe gemini-cli can do this. I'm not sure though.

AI is ideal for cybersecurity, if it's implemented correctly.

I can tell you right now, that it's not going to be implemented correctly.

Zvi's an AI-doomer, so he sees the endgame as AI becoming smart enough that they don't need us anymore and then killing us to take our stuff, but your scenario is also pretty bad.

No, it's bad, since we will soon reach a point where AI models are major security risks and we can't get rid of an AI after we open-source it.

Not really.

They earned it.

It's good to know that Claude 3.7 isn't enough to build Skynet!

Yeah, a lot of the web is at-risk if searchers just read LLM summaries and don't click through, but we will have Skynet before that becomes a real issue and then this will all be irrelevant.

No.

3 out of 4 companies I consulted for that started using AI for coding marked cost as an important criteria.

And those aren't average customers.

Very few customers pick the model based on cost, for many ChatGPT is the only one they know of.

Interesting. I know the author thinks asking an LLM to make Atari games is cheating, but did he consider just randomly sampling from the assembly code of Atari games?

I'm not going to take security advice from someone whose website I can't open in https.

We try things, sometimes they don't work.

If someone invents an unsafe AI capable of making a billion dollars, then we will probably all die, which is why we should make safe AI instead.

If you have a Safe AI, then becoming a billionaire is being an underachiever.

AI safety is a genuinely hard problem.

What a coincidence! I was just added to the "Deep Research" beta.

The basic results are interesting, but what really surprised me is that asking them to double-check didn't work. Falling for an "optical illusion" is one thing, but being unable to see the truth once you know the illusion there is much worse.

This just isn't true. If it took the energy of a small town, why would they sell it for $20/month?

I like it, but giving Claude a "Deep Research" mode would be better.

Netflix's value comes from being convenient and compatible with the copyright system in a way sharing videos P2P definitely isn't.