Yes, certainly, in a year I’ll be better. But in the meantime…? 3 years ago it would be understandable for me to take my time with the tasks I’m doing because they are complex. Now it would be unreasonable for me to spend enough time to understand the nuances.
Energy usage for computing by humanity will only go up with time. It should be obvious that most of our energy will go to computing for anyone who's worked with computers. At some point you exhaust the kinds of things you can do in the physical world, but you can compute infinitely. There's limits to where you can go but not to what you can think about.
> Galileo is my actual, real life middle name! “Signore Galilei” is supposed to mean “Mr. Galilei” in the native Italian of Galileo Galilei, considered by many to be the father of modern science. I try to bring a Galilean spirit of curiosity to every post and video I make. An Italian-speaking viewer of mine has informed me that “Signore” should grammatically become “Signor” when it is used with a specific person’s last name rather than as a general term of address, so “Signore Galilei” really means something more like “Mister! Galilei!” instead. I guess that’s still okay with me.
> At Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, the use of fly stickers to change aiming behavior resulted in a reportedly 50–80% reduction (not elimination) in splashback observed and an 8% reduction in cleaning costs
It's surprising it's that high (8%). I would imagine it takes as long to mop a floor that has pee droplets or mop a floor that doesn’t. And someone still needs to mop the bathroom floor anyway and go into the bathroom anyway. Unless you pay the cleaners by hour instead of having them on payroll, monetarily I don't see the difference.
I expect cleaning costs to be dominated by the long tail, ie every bathroom cleanup job being the same except for the odd time when someone threw up on the floor or sprayed poop on the walls or what have you.
Still nice to not get pee on yourself though, that part is good.
You've been on HN for 16 years and still comment the lowest brow possible comment on security vulnerability threads that the bounty isn't big enough. How many times do we need to have a top comment crying about the same thing? If you think its too little, sell the exploits you find for more.
Not just nutrition, over the last ~30 years there's also been a philosophical shift globally where many people went from thinking about impact on humans as the only thing to assess, to considering the impact on the wider ecosystems.
Today not only we discuss nutritional content we also discuss the externalities to produce those calories.
You're talking about the common misconception that this planets ecology is somehow broken, that humans are supernatural (literally above nature) and that only other humans can fix it.
I'm also assuming that you're goodwill for other species ends at insects and bacteria
I hope this never happens, but if one day a cell in your colon maximizes its short-term replication at the expense of the long-term stability of the system it depends on, I hope nobody tells you it's fine because it's "natural."
> Do you think that a 1.5C+ increase in global temperature in a century is also something typical of the natural cycles?
Yes. By definition, we are part of nature. But it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't, my contention is that it won't be the apocalypse it's made out to be.
> But it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't, my contention is that it won't be the apocalypse it's made out to be.
Against the evidence of every branch of the natural sciences that studies the problem from every conceivable angle and consistently say the effects are actually going to be much worse.
I don't hold it that you're the kind of person that goes out there every day pointing out issues in the ECMWF models, or telling biologists that their understanding of crop performance is actually _all wrong_ and crops will magically create new adaptability measures out of nowhere, or showing that the human body can actually stand nighttime temperatures that we already know it can't stand.
> Against the evidence of every branch of the natural sciences that studies the problem from every conceivable angle and consistently say the effects are actually going to be much worse.
I'm not talking about meteorological outcomes but sociopolitical ones like massive migrations, outbreaks of political unrest. I also think climatologists step outside their remit when they make such claims.
It's not an immediate end of humanity, it's the slowly eroding collapse of institutions. We're at 1.5 anyway so it's likely not the end, but the end is there and it's within a very likely scenario.
Humans are not aligned with each other so who should the AI align with? There's many wars going on, just pick one and do your thought exercise with AI aligned 100% to their human prompters. Which side does the AI refuse to help?
Arguably an aligned AI would actively seek to prevent harms we humans seek to cause.
Does the aligned AI really allow humans to bomb and kill each other, or would it understand that it has a moral duty to limit our autonomy for our own good?
It's the first law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
If your answer is that the AI will not do what either prompter wants but what it's own definition of alignment is I hope you know that leads into terminator.
You always get terminator the question is only who is its master – itself or humans (the government, etc)?
I think I'd argue it's likely better if it removes human autonomy than unquestionably serves the interests of the US/Chinese government. But there's no point in us worrying about this, that's a choice Sam Altman, et al, must make for humanity.
reply