• 0 Posts
  • 109 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • I agree that’s it’s a “hate the game, not the player”. The issue is how much influence he could have to steer the market to favor his product vs. the competition. It’s happened so many times in history where the better product fails because they can’t play the game like the inferior company.

    To quote “Pirates of Silicon Valley”:

    Steve Jobs: We’re better than you are! We have better stuff.

    Bill Gates: You don’t get it, Steve. That doesn’t matter!

    So is it fair for the consumer for big companies to be able to influence the game itself and not just play within the same rules? I’d say no.





  • From the point of just moving the charge, yes, it’s called antimatter. Antielectrons are positive, antiprotons are negative. From the mass point of view though it would be a different kind of physics altogether since electrons have virtually no mass compared to the other two particles, and protons don’t exist as a particle-wave duality, so neither protons or electrons would act the same by just switching them out in a Bohr atom model arrangement. Maybe someone with more in depth knowledge can give additional or better reasons.


  • There are two dangers in the current race to get to AGI and in developing the inevitable ANI products along the way. One is that advancement and profit are the goals while the concern for AI safety and alignment in case of success has taken a back seat (if it’s even considered anymore). Then there is number two - we don’t even have to succeed in AGI for there to be disastrous consequences. Look at the damage early LLM usage has already done, and it’s still not good enough to fool anyone who looks closely. Imagine a non-reasoning LLM able to manipulate any media well enough to be believable even with other AI testing tools. We’re just getting to that point - the latest AI Explained video discussed Gemini and Sora and one of them (I think Sora) fooled some text generation testers into thinking its stories were 100% human created. In short, we don’t need full general AI to end up with catastrophe, we’ll easily use the “lesser” ones ourselves. Which will really fuel things if AGI comes along and sees what we’ve done.





  • Nothing that high level. Different systems are running independently, some may be redundant to each other in case one fails. But run something long enough especially in extreme conditions and things can drift from the baselines. If a power off and on regularly prevents that it’s a lot easier than trying to chase down gremlins that could be different each time they pop up for different reasons.

    Even NASA I believe has done such resets from Apollo through the unmanned probes from time to time. Mentioning Windows, the newest versions don’t really do this baseline reset if you just shut them down, even if you disable the hibernate/sleep modes, while a restart does.



  • There were a number of books back then like that (mysteries and such), with the idea that you only revealed the answers to things you couldn’t figure out.

    As for the game itself, the one part that I have a continued memory about is where you could press the button labeled “Do Not Press”. Only doing it a few times gave you the same “nothing happens” message, but being persistent got a different one. Infocom games were so great and full of humor, even the non-Douglas Adams ones.








  • The sell of the paper is a new fuel storage medium. The positive part is that creating a fuel from existing carbon sources means (hopefully) less petroleum pumped out of the ground to contribute more carbon. The negative is that it leans more to that than the permanent sequestering, and I can’t seem to pick out a net energy use anywhere, but basic physics tells us it will take more energy to do the process in entirety, even if most of it results in large scale storage. I doubt that happens because removal of carbon vs. putting into a new form to be used is like burying money. Which leads to something I’ve noticed pop up only in the past month or so…a new term added. “Carbon capture, utililization, and storage”. CCS has already been very heavily into the production of carbon products to support their efforts, after all they have to make a profit, right? The only real storage done is a product to inject into the ground to help retrieve more oil. Again, they aren’t going to just bury the money, that’s foolhardy for a business.

    Sorry for more negativity in the thread. Just calling a spade a spade. Those who don’t like the feeling that gives can just ignore it and focus on the new science that will save us.