Effective altruism is something that sounds good in principle, and I still think is good in general, though can kind of run out of control.

Sam Bankman Fried was someone who at least claimed to follow this philosophy. The issue being that you can talk yourself into doing bad things (fraud) in the name or earning money that you would then donate much of.

And more generally get into doing “long term” or “big picture” good while also doing a lot of harm. But hey the ends justify the means.

Again, I think the principle of being a lot more calculated in how we do philanthropy is a huge good thing. But the EA movement has had some missteps and probably needs to be reigned in a bit.

Funnily enough Wiki quotes Altman as one of the critics.

I don’t think it’s necessarily true that if we listen to “doomers” we get sensible policy. And it’s probably more likely we get regulatory capture.

But there does exist a sensible middle ground.

I actually think they are correct to bring up the potential upside as something we should consider more in the moral calculus. But the of course it’s taken to a silly extreme.

You named a bunch of people and companies who are not the subject of the article

deleted by creator

I mean, I think it’s a little different in that there’s tangible AI products that millions of people are already using?

I have my own doubts about how the current architectures scale towards “general intelligence”, but seems like a very real breakthrough that is already producing at a significant level.

I’m not a proponent of this mindset but this seems like an obvious mischaracterization of the argument

My biggest issues is that it seems to exist only in direct response to “doomers” as they love to say. And are maybe right to criticize, but having the whole thing just being a counter extreme doesn’t work either. And there’s lot of hand waving about technology and history and markets correcting themselves.

But I’ve never gotten the impression that it’s just a cynical “I don’t care if AI fucks everyone as long as I make money.”

Depends what you mean by same port. A reverse proxy would allow you to expose everything over 443 and then the proxy would route to particular app ports and hosts.

Transition in the same way it is for all software these days. The difference is the expectation of always on connections, constant telemetry, and continuous delivery of updates. That’s quite a bit different than the software model used for your 1981 Ranger. Though it’s not specific to cars.

Another possible innovation would be people onboard to row

For sure. Part of me would want to take a sort of principled stand and not fuck with anything meta. But if I can follow people on threads from Mastadon, that would be pretty nice, and I think that integration would lend Mastadon and federation in general some legitimacy to the normies (for lack of a better word).

It should be left up to individual instances or user who to block. I personally think the integration is great

AH. Well then… that makes a bit more sense lol

Removed by mod

You wouldn’t pay to not own a car

It’s a technical challenge but I wouldn’t rule it out. Apple has been using a “neural engine” in their SoC for faced id, etc. for a while. So it’s something they’ve been working on. It will need to get better, but AI models are also getting more efficient.

I think “matters more to their generation” is doing some heavy lifting. They surely know how to navigate social media and chat servers and all that. And in a way that’s more important.

I don’t think that maps to being able to use Linux with any proficiency.

Kids are smart in some ways and stupid in a lot of ways that adults are. They’re largely being put in a battle they can’t win against YouTube and TikTok that systematically target their psychology.

I mean, who else would be responsible? Buck stops with him

I share your pessimism tbh

I’d really love to see some better propositions for quantifying value that’s better than straight up corporate profit. I’m with you a 100%, just looking for the path to get there.

I agree that we shouldn’t devalue it, and that was my initial word choice. That wasn’t the intent behind the choice, but I get it. I’m not sure “essential” is a good descriptor either. It is essential, but that’s not the defining quality we’re after.