not sure what this sort of naval gazing accomplishes. software companies are designing their products around user preferences. you or anyone else are welcome to create the kind of software you think we "should" have, but if it doesn't line up with the revealed preferences of the users then I'm not sure what the point is
Agreed, blind people and sighted people are able to experience different kinds of beauty that are inaccessible to each other. As a sighted person, if there was a technology that could describe the beauty that a blind person experiences in a given moment I would think that would be pretty cool to try.
> Please, don't hype accessibility just for your personal fun. There are people out there with real problems, and dangling impossible solutions before their "eyes" is pretty much cruel
Do you think it's going to be impossible forever? bandwidth and latency seem like the surest things to improve in AI tech
The thesis is simple: these programs are smart now, but unreliable when executing complex, multi-step tasks. If that improves (whether because the models get so smart that they never make a mistake in the first place, or because they get good enough at checking their work and correcting it), we can give them control over a computer and run them in a loop in order to function as drop-in remote workers.
The economic growth would then come from every business having access to a limitless supply of tireless, cheap, highly intelligent knowledge workers
Thanks for the comments, that was really enlightening. Not sure why people on a tech forum seem so eager to dismiss an emerging technology rather than using their imaginations a little
> But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk.
Yeah this was basically going to be my response to the first part of your response. Israel wants to be around for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. You can't accept existential risk, even if small, if that's your goal.
> And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple.
I agree. My comment was just trying to look at the question of why the initial invasion by Hamas was seen as an existential threat great enough to justify an all out counterattack. I don't know how to answer when enough is enough, and I could easily believe that Israel isn't even considering that question out of rage.
The damage to Israel's international reputation could outweigh any security it gains through deterrence - the fact that Hamas hasn't freed their hostages or stopped firing rockets suggests that they don't want Israel to stop fighting for this reason
Israel is surrounded by nations which want to see Israel destroyed, and which have banded together in the past to attempt exactly that (e.g. the Yom Kippur War in 1973). If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.