HN user
Could it rather be that genZ are risk averse and choose not to volunteer to be shot at? Or even that they have greater moral concerns than earlier generations? (No judgement on that implied, complexities acknowledged)
That said, personally can’t see how a show would be much help either.
Unlikely to be a popular question in this forum but in my view the most important topic we need to reflect on is “are we really better off with these services?” - obviously at face value there is utility or there wouldn’t be the market penetration but the externalities and issues of market dominance are becoming more apparent and pressing.
And if we agree that better solutions are needed then the question becomes “how do we create the market conditions that support those better outcomes?”
I’d really like to see kk reflect on this article with 10 years hindsight and see if he remains optimistic.
Genuinely curious- In what sense is the risk calculated? I understand that the leverage factor is known but fundamentally isn’t this still just a bet that eth will rise? And if it falls then won’t the loss be multiplied by the same leverage factor?
Obviously you can research the eth market and form a view but you can also research horse racing form and the odds themselves should be a fair calculation indicator if the betting market is working well - so it seems fair to suggest that this is in the same category as a horse racing bet.
This would be totally necessary for a robust conclusion-trust me, the social cues of having PD are not subtle ;)
The associated paper is excellent and available on open access here:
This seems consistent with research from the University of Alabama that demonstrates substantial differences between Parkinsonian gut microbiome and control subjects- very plausible (IMO) that this might result in smell differences.
The Alabama paper is open access and well worth reading if you’re interested in Parkinson’s
https://www.uab.edu/news/research/item/13280-new-study-puts-...
It’s not the winning, it’s the taking part
Surely this can’t be justified as a ux driven “oversight” - I am not an economics professor but I would be feeling totally sketchy if I manipulated a data source in such an apparently arbitrary manner.
In combination with the (reportedly)blatant lack of any reference to the methodology in his paper this feels like wilful gross misconduct in professor-land.
IMO this sort of thing rightly undermines confidence and credibility of research in a much broader context and should be a sackable matter if shown to be true as asserted.
Adjacent to this, I recommend reading (and perhaps even sharing with your parents) “Being Mortal” by Atul Gawande. It is a masterpiece on the reality of aging and what is important in managing the process towards a good life and ultimately death.
As someone dealing with a long term, chronic, progressive and currently incurable condition I can say that for me it really helped to find a better focus and conversation around what is important and how to communicate needs and desires towards good outcomes.
“…and finally the work will be done completely by AI.”
How will the AI be trained on novel patterns of interaction, for example new products or previously unknown problems?
It seems to me that (as the article suggests) high level human support capabilities will be more valuable in this scenario rather than less - rather different from a complete AI solution
Fair enough- however this analysis specifically addresses
“Critical technologies [which] can be defined as current and emerging technologies with the capacity to significantly enhance, or pose risk to, a country’s national interests, including a nation’s economic prosperity, social cohesion, and national security”
So a level of consideration for the geopolitical implications seems warranted - after all, I’m not sure anyone really invests in hypersonic nuclear capable ballistic technology for the general advancement of humanity.
The benefits of a multi polar world are another topic of course.
Spoiler alert-it’s not looking too hot for the west
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/02/china-leading-...
Exactly my observation as a southerner who has lived in the north and Scandinavia
Northern English is significantly influenced by Scandinavian words today- for example the “-by” suffixes on town names is a direct use of the modern Danish word for town, Kirkby meaning Church Town in a direct translation
It seems relevant to me that the English themselves are actually a good mix of Vikings, Romans, French, Germans and Celts (and some other stuff no doubt) - so to advocate for just one of these inheritances as opposed to the mixture seems a bit of a nonsense, even if one chooses to ignore the richness of interactions with other languages in Britains history as an international nation - “Global Britain” indeed.
From experience of NZ quakes, wooden buildings seem to survive well.
Aside from the flexibility of wooden vertical load bearing posts, the typical weather board / external wooden slat construction which is widely used in New Zealand allows for the narrow boards to slide independently under the lateral shaking forces. The external walls can deform into trapezoid shapes more effectively - hence a higher threshold for catastrophic damage and better future usability.
Brickwork chimneys, internal plasterwork and the subsurface conditions are another story but a least the dwelling is still functional :/
No, you’re right - as an earlier comment said, the red zone roads are not maintained anymore since the area was demoed and they are currently pretty munted.
I can’t say that the rest of the city is pristine but it is a good bit better.
Interesting to note that the street view is pre demolition so all the buildings you see are now gone - street view ghosts.
I’m pretty familiar with the area- one of the more unique parts of the city is the “red zone”, a recovered area which became uninsurable due to the changes in the assessment of land risks post quake.
It’s a weird place as the roads are still there and the trees are still along the edges of the former gardens but all the houses are gone and the sites reverted to grass. Many of the fruit trees on this map are from those gardens.
You can get a good idea from google maps: Avonside Red Zone https://maps.app.goo.gl/bXcnExMeur9oNovp6?g_st=ic
You have to be quick to get the fruit there though ;)
I think I have a basic understanding of the underlying “likely next word generation “ paradigm of gpt but what puzzles me is how does the system form an apparently coherent/ persistent sense of self? Ie repeatedly using the self identity of Sydney across multiple sessions and or persistently holding on to the I love you theme in many exchanges in this example.
Thanks- did do a search before posting but (to my surprise) I only found 1 of the earlier posts.
On investigation this is because I searched the https:// url of the article. Note to self to be more thorough in future.
Fair point, probably should have said something like “[marginal cost of re-]production”
That’s really helpful clarification, thanks :) - and helps explain why the claim doc includes a focus on the stages in the process where the Getty content is allegedly copied.
With this in mind it will be even more interesting to see how this plays out.
Prescient comment on what becomes valuable when the cost of production essentially becomes irrelevant. Becoming more important as time passes.
Fair enough. I agree that $500 is a big ask for public domain content, however there is still a service provided by Getty in surfacing this content. It seems fair to charge a fee for that convenience- after all, the consumer has an option to do that work and find it themselves if they value their time less than the cost and have the necessary knowledge. Kevin Kelly identifies this in his excellent article “better than free“ (https://kk.org/thetechnium/better-than-fre/)
Getty asserts a related point in the claim- that the work done to build extensive metadata for the content (which Stability apparently used for training their models) is a valuable service in and of itself.
Edit: just clicked through your link above and should have done so before. While the points above still stand (imho), the presentation on the Getty site borders on misrepresentation in the implication that they are copyright holders. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Not sure if you are asserting this but Just because an image is in the public domain, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Stability has a right to use it for training. I have online content that is licensed as Creative Commons attribution, non commercial, share alike- it seems to me that using this for training would breach at least the non commercial terms of that license.
This seems totally irrelevant to the case in my view, which is whether Stability Ai had the right to use Getty’s content for training in the manner that they allegedly did.
Would you notice a cognitive difference if your cognition was affected by it?
Does anyone else feel like this is slightly overblown? From my perspective it was a localised and relatively limited risk and had fairly obvious and achievable corrective actions with a relatively good chance of success.
It intrigues me that this seems to be perceived as something so calamitous/ risky.
I’m going to take this as a request for reflections on life - apologise if that is not what you are looking for. anyway, my top 3 in no particular order:
The Subtle Art of not Giving a F*ck by Mark Manson - look past the title, there is real wisdom here
Being Mortal by Atul Gawande - because we’re all getting older and thinking about that honestly puts things in perspective
The Four Agreements By Don Miguel Ruiz - a little mystical in presentation for some but underneath that there are some deep thoughts
An honourable mention goes to The 7 habits of highly effective people by Stephen Covey which I listened to on cassette 30 years ago and is still useful.
Generally, exercise and contact are also really important, learning meditation/ mindfulness has also helped me hugely in tough times.