I don't have any anecdotal data, just detecting a whiff of a possible pattern in your statement. DDoS is bots. Any chance the prevalent discourse is bots? "I ain't saying she a gold digger..."
> We just don't trust them enough to not have human pilots.
Much of the value of a human crew is as an implicit dogfooding warranty for the passengers. If it wasn't safe to fly, the pilots wouldn't risk it day after day.
To think of it, it'd be nice if they posted anonymized third-party psych evaluations of the cockpit crew on the wall by the restrooms. The cabin crew would probably appreciate that too.
There are soooo many pilot decisions that AI is nowhere near making. Managing a flight is more than flying. It is about making safety decisions during crisis, from deciding when to abort an approach to deciding when to eject a passenger. Sure, someone on the ground could make many of those decisions, but i prefer such things be decided by someone with literal skin in the game, not a beancounter or lawyer in an office
> It is about making safety decisions during crisis, from deciding when to abort an approach to deciding when to eject a passenger.
Everyone likes to hand wring about this sort of stuff but I think it's the exception. Nailing the "macro level" decisions like "we'll go around this storm but we'll go over that one" or "we must divert to A or B and we will chose B because it's better for our passengers/company/crew even if it's 10min more flying to get there" are what keep the industry humming along mostly in the black rather than in the red. And it's these sorts of things that AI just tends to yolo and get mostly right when they're obvious but also get immensely wrong when any sort of gotcha materializes.
I sincerely doubt that pilots decide "when to eject a passenger". Mostly it would be the cabin crew: the flight attendants are 100% in charge of flight safety, and they would be managing relationships with passengers, and they would be the ones to make the call. It would ultimately be them calling some kind of law enforcement. If an Air Marshal is onboard already, obviously they would be on the front line as well.
Furthermore, the concept of "ejecting a passenger" from a flight would mostly not be something you do while in the air, unless you're nuts. Ejecting a passenger is either done before takeoff, or your crew decides to divert the flight, or continue to the destination and have law enforcement waiting on the tarmac.
Naturally, pilots get involved when it's a question of where to fly the plane and when to divert, but ultimately the cabin crew is also involved in those decisions about problem passengers.
The Pilot in Command has ultimate legal responsibility over the operation of the flight, ICAO conventions explicitly state this. Whilst in practice the cabin crew will be the ones dealing with the passenger(s) and supplying information to the PIC , it won’t be them making the final decision.
Pretty sure ejection here is meant as shorthand for "Transfer the passenger to an entity on the ground to proceed from there" whether that entity is emergency medical services or law enforcement is secondary.
I don't disagree. However, if we change nothing, one likely alternative outcome is planet of 100 trillionaires, 10000 concubines, and an ever-shrinking ghetto of scavenging paupers. The solution is to turn the un-meritocratic nature of this particular bit of technical change against it.
As the value of labor plummets, more GDP will accrue to capital. But to whose, exactly? Let's categorize individual investing performance as a function of luck, corruption and skill. Only skill is meritocratic, and there is no good reason to reward the other two. Things have trended away from skill in recent decades.
As AI automation progresses, it provides more of the skill. Eventually all investing decisions will be AI-based, democratizing the process but effectively leaving luck and corruption in control of who wins.
At that point, there's just no good reason to reward individual investment performance. Since luck averages out, corruption will largely determine who the 100 trillionaires are.
The solution is to tax away the portion of investment returns that are not based on skill, which will trend towards 100%.
Yep. I think the idea that the benchmark is determinative is just as deluded as the notion that it should be unbreakable.
Benchmarks are on the honor system. Even the tightest benchmark can be cheated. If the benchmark is so secret and air-gapped that it can't be cheated by models, it can be cheated by its own authors. You can't use benchmarks to gate out cheating.
If you don't have the honor system in mind when you're reading scores, you're wasting your time. Is it some unknown outfit with wild claims? Is it connected to Epstein, Russia, the real estate "industry", or sleazeballing in general? Do they have previous history of ratgaming the numbers? Replace its scores with asterisks and move on.
This is an odd choice of a thread for a laundry list of complaints about AI and about a person that, say what you will, is nowhere near the list of planetary "really bad guys". Even if we limit it to tech, the list starts with someone way richer, then goes through four or five way-shadier people.
If you're OK with victim-shaming here, doesn't it say more about you than Altman? What does it say about your viewpoint?
> about a person that, say what you will, is nowhere near the list of planetary "really bad guys". Even if we limit it to tech, the list starts with someone way richer, then goes through four or five way-shadier people.
You really don't need to go that high up the ladder to find members of the 'list of planetary really bad guys'. Sam Altman is single-handedly responsible for starting the current DRAM crunch - that too based on an untenable economic framework. He's also an enthusiastic participant in the AI bubble that threatens to cause a massive global economic depression when it pops. He's also involved in the cabal that wrecks the labor market (wages) by hyping up the 'AI will replace labor' narrative. On top of all that, he and his ilk are on a building spree of data centers that will guzzle huge amount of energy and dump tonnes of extra CO2 into the atmosphere, as if there's no tomorrow. This wrecks all the hard efforts of millions of others before him to rein in the damages caused by the climate change. Needless to say, all of these have pretty deleterious effects on the economy, biosphere and the welfare of ordinary people, including loss of innumerable lives.
But does he care? He is one of those people who simply ignore the trail of serious damage and enormous suffering they leave in their wake, because they don't see anything beyond money - more money than they can spend in a hundred lifetimes! Nobody needs a justification to see him as one of those 'planetary bad guys'.
> What does it say about your viewpoint?
As someone else here said, it goes without saying that lobbing Molotov cocktail at anyone is a no-no. I don't support physical violence in any form. Having said that,...
> If you're OK with victim-shaming here
It's sad that the aristocratic society didn't learn anything from the murder of Brian Thompson. The 'victim' had caused thousands of preventable deaths per year, and his death saved thousands by forcing the industry to deal with the problem. Suddenly, even the pacifists (like me) are left wondering if the death was unethical. If true justice existed, the state would have stopped them from their crimes (aka professions), if not outright execute them for the lives lost. Whom will you choose when they pitch their own lives against thousands of innocent lives? You can't claim victimhood after putting yourself in that position.
I read the New Yorker article like most people here. I didn't find anything incendiary enough in it to provoke a Molotov attack. I wouldn't put it past him to have arranged it himself, given how much he lies and what he stands to gain from it. But let's assume that the attack is real and is connected to the report. The reply seems overly dramatic and self-righteous, given that the attack was against his iron gate! He's milking the situation to indulge in virtue signaling, sympathy farming and gaslighting the critics. This is one hell of a victim posing! But I have no sympathies to spare if it distressed him so much. He shouldn't be able to sleep anyway, if only he had a conscience. Advocating sympathy for the unsympathetic super-privileged is a bit tone deaf under such circumstances. Evidently, nobody is in a mood to oblige to such manipulations.
I understand the temptation to Streisand this, but for the love of, please don't. S1/2 were the best show I've seen on TV. It would be a crime against good taste.
> He hasn't kept ahead of the destruction of the dollar very well.
You can't price dollars in gold to measure value. Gold doesn't measure value better than the dollar at any point in time, let alone over time. Just use the price index for one currency, or the relative price indexes across currencies.
I broadly agree with you, however: during the classic gold standard years, gold did have a pretty stable purchasing power (as eg measured by your favourite inflation index) in the long run.
However, since the world largely went off the gold standard, the purchasing power of gold has been a lot more volatile.
Suits in agriculture don't drive the combine either, a farmer does. The other 99% of pre-automation farmers went on to other jobs. They happened to be better jobs than farming, but that's not necessarily always the case.
Same background as you, and same exact experience as you. Opus and Gemini have not come close to Codex for C++ work. I also run exclusively on xhigh. Its handling of complexity is unmatched.
At least until next week when Mythos and GPT 6 throw it all up in the air again.
reply