We use a C compiler for embedded systems that doesn't support link time optimizations (unless you pay for the pro version, that is). I have been thinking about some tool like this that merges all C source files for compilation.
> It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium
Which, to me, makes sense. Once the underlying technology exists, a malicious actor would not think twice before developing tools of deceptionlike those. It makes sense that OpenAI would work on that "in the open" to demonstrate that we now need to be skeptical of audios.
Hopefully I'm not being over optimistic, and I only vaguely understand the many tradeoffs that go into rocket design. But, technology-wise, starship seems analogous to a falcon heavy propelling a space shuttle. Both of which are manageable, proven technologies.
I think you are incorrect. If you build a 230-m tall pipe and fill it up with water, the water at the ground-level end of the pipe will be at the exact same pressure as the water 230 m deep in the ocean. Hydrostatic pressure only depends on the depth, not the container shape.
It is different this time. I bet that was also said when the transformations that you mentioned occurred, but this time it really is different.
LLM models are pretty general in their capabilities, so it is not like the relatively slow process of electrification, when lamplighters lost their jobs. Everyone can lose their jobs in a matter of months because AI can do close to everything.
I am excited to live in a world where AI has "freed" humans from wage slavery, but our economic system is not ready to deal with that yet.
Too many times I have been the guy in the top left quadrant of the chart in the post. I eventually came to the realization that I have often been disrespectful to the intelligence and capacity of my colleagues. I am lucky that I get to work with smart people, and I have to remind myself that these smart people know what they are doing and don't want to do more work than necessary. This has helped me set my tone and ask better questions.
What the fuck indeed. I can't help but think of the Nuremberg laws in Germany. More specifically the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor" [1]. Sure, it's not _that bad_ (e.g., the Israeli law is not banning marriages per se) but has a similar sentiment.
People tend to emphasize the negatives, like you mentioned, but WhatsApp has revolutionized communication in the low-income country I came from. And I think ultimately creating a net benefit for society (even though the conspiracy theories are really bad). Calling/texting using the cellular networks is still pretty expensive, so a lot of mom-and-pop shops conduct a significant portion of their business over WhatsApp (for a fraction of the cost of an equivalent 1-800 number).
You got it actually, it's all about how long you leave your hand in. And that is why the probe has a very elliptical orbit, so it "touches" the sun briefly and goes back out into space to cool down.
Temperature is not what burns you, it's heat flow that does the burning. A boiling pot has a lot of molecules densely packed together, so heat transfer happens fast. The air inside the oven is hot but will not be as effective in transferring heat to your hand. There is more "thermal resistance" between your hand and the air inside the oven than your hand and the water inside a boiling pot.
> doesn’t hurt anything because there isn’t anything better being done with it or better ways to store it
That's a very strong statement. If you unpack it a little bit, what you are saying is there is absolutely nothing productive ("better") that could be using that energy. I don't know if that's the case. Bitcoin mining might just be the most profitable thing to do, so nothing else was attempted.
Just wondering here, is there any way to protect oneself from that type of situation while at the same time keeping the source code open? Obviously, the name and logo are trademarked, but a third party could rebrand the program while using the same underlying source code.
Other people in this thread bring up great counterpoints. Namely, gaming is not nearly as intensive as mining and whatever value gaming brings to society is more than that of mining.
I'd also say that gaming at least occupies the human who is playing. Mining would be running in the background: the human would still be consuming energy doing something else. So one doesn't replace the other. Therefore using the inefficiency of one to justify the inefficiency of the other is not a valid argument.
One last observation: you're assuming that all these video cards would still have been produced. Maybe production of hardware has gone up to serve the mining demand.
I generally like the idea of rewarding replication studies. Replication/validation could be a required process that runs concurrently to peer review. The researchers who run the experiments to replicate results could rewarded by being added as contributors to the original paper, so they also get the citations. And like you suggest, the paper would then be marked as "validated" or something similar. I wonder if any journals out there are already doing something like this.
There is, of course, the danger of collusion among original authors and validators. Hopefully the fear of having your results rebuked would prevent people from trying to publish bullshit in the first place.
Another problem is logistics. Research labs have their own ideas they want to push forward, so spending time and resources proving or (even worse) disproving some else's idea doesn't sound that great. Also, even if it gives you citations, it probably wouldn't help you with your thesis.