I thought it was fantastic show too. It was made in part by Damon Lindelof, who is kinda an auteur of sorts in the prestige TV world (for better and worse), probably most notably for Lost. But for those who know: he is the guy that did The Leftovers.
Mrs. Davis is its own really colorful and rich and funny thing though, more akin imo to other 1-season gems like I'm a Virgo or Maniac where I am more glad it stopped where it did rather than continue and become bad.
They knew what they were making and went exactly hard enough to sustain 8 episodes without feeling rushed or dragging.
It’s one of the few shows that reaches a satisfying conclusion, ties up the loose ends, the hero rides off into the sunset, and it just ends. There’s no setting up a season 2 that never got made.
It kinda seems like you are just stating the implied argument this article is targeted towards? Or something else? Do you disagree with, e.g., Daron Acemoglu's position here? Or is there some truism somewhere we are all missing?
Not the OP but I think there is something to the notion that whatever is scarce but in demand is what will be expensive and of course the inverse would be true as well. What this means is humans however they do get resources will be able to put those resources to use abundantly frankly nearly for free on things like digital intelligence but other things will become scarce.. one could speculate about what those things are but even if they're not scarce today they could become scarce in a relative sense where they become relatively valuable and that's what people will be getting selling to each other
As someone who lives this reality (arrest but no conviction), it's in practice not really so bad. It's never come up with a landlord. The last time it came up was after being accepted to grad school and I had to fill out a form about it. You do just carry with you the knowledge that if you ever get pulled over the cop can pull it up about you and have reason to hassle you more.
Given that you’re posting on HN and went to grad school, I wonder whether you’ve worked a minimum wage job. Most of those applications ask whether you’ve ever been arrested. It’s been a long time since I worked one of those jobs, but I remember that all of the applications I filled out back then asked me. Thankfully the answer was no.
Working minimum wage jobs is demoralizing on multiple levels. The jobs are often physically exhausting (I unloaded trucks and stocked shelves among other things). But the worst part is that the entire system treats you with disdain. You walk away with the strong feeling that nobody gives a shit. I knew that I wanted and could have better things but many of my coworkers internalized a different message.
Why should we care about that? Even if you wanted to argue our individual fates are tied to our country's, we don't all live in the same country, so how, actually, could we all care? Are you really convinced its so zero sum like this?
We collectively spend decades and decades creating a sophisticated global capitalism, huge networks and infrastructures of trade and travel, just to find ourselves in some dark forest-esque race with everyone else anyway? Is this really consistent to you? What was the point of anything in the last, like 40 years to you if we just need to act like we are still in a cold war, except this time its a war with everyone?
"Other countries" means China here, I think. China got a little on board with the global capitalism (and lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty along the way, if we're looking for the point), but never really embraced Liberalism and so ideally isn't the one aligning superintelligence. It would be lousy if Russia or North Korea or Somalia was in that position and it would be fine if the UK or Denmark or Brazil or Ghana was, but none of that matters because none of them will be in that position. Only the US and China are playing the game.
If this speculated intelligence is so "super" why would it matter what its host country's commitments are? I would hope it would at least be intelligent enough to sort things out there? How can something be so potentially threatening, so "super," but also be like a baby, where we need to worry how its raised? Its super intelligent about everything except ideology? That doesn't really sound like (super)intelligence to me..
But ok, even granting that framing, if the issue is China's placement on the spectrum of "liberal", what would it take for them to be the good enough guys here?
I think it's more of a prestige discussion. Who leads, who follows, between countries. Not whose super intelligence is better. Who got their first, and how are they using it?
A supervillain is nevertheless super. Intelligence doesn't correlate with morality- most probably there doesn't exist a 'true ideology' that can be solved for in absolute terms. Do you imagine a superintelligence could calculate how beauty 'ought to' be traded off against truth?
When I say China is a bad choice because it's not as liberal as ~the west, I do imagine a reader in China thinking the opposite. I don't think they're dumb and I don't think they've been duped; they have a coherent ideology that fits their values. I just don't want it to stomp out mine.
Maybe I'm wrong and you can solve for morality or at least the meta-morality of Liberalism/pluralism where you permit various moralities to coexist. Hopefully so. Maybe the value system in China is closer to mine than I imagine and it's just operating under different constraints. But I don't want to gamble on that when winning is within reach and is a guarantee given alignment to any human values is achieved at all.
Tell tale sign of what? What are we even doing once we are "fully agentic"? I probably lack some imagination here, but if there is no human connected to any of it, what does any human actually get out of it? What is the point?
But isn't that their point? In the age of AI, maybe being "easier to audit" is as much a risk than an assurance? I'm not sure I agree, but it is interesting to mull over. Further, either way, your tone and response is not very charitable, to say the least. From the outside, you are the only one blustering and grasping here. Not everything needs to be so antagonistic maybe?
Reverse uno. The same AI can be used to fix the holes in the open source code. And a LOT more AI review by benevolent parties is gonna hit that open source code than the closed source.
I agree with you all around except it's somewhat up for debate actually that the PI is "contradicting" the Tractatus. That is, there is the so called "resolute reading" of the Tractatus that had some traction for a while.
But note this is more to say that the Tractatus is like PI, not the other way around. And in that, takes like GPs would be considered the "nonsense" we are supposed to "climb over" in the last proposition of Tractatus.
reply