Do you genuinely believe that this is a binary decision, or is this just anti-euthanasia rhetoric disguised as concern trolling?
Offering humane end-of-life options to people suffering today does not prohibit ongoing disease research towards potentially helping people in the future.
It's not entirely binary, but there is an obvious unpleasant tendency in e.g. Canada, to soft-push MAID onto potentially treatable patients who don't even seek medically assisted death.
I wouldn't want my government to have an option of dealing with the problem this way, and if I needed MAID, I'd just self-administer.
He is alluding to the fact that over the last decade or so, consumers have unwittingly slid down the slope of "not having true control over personal electronic devices". Iphones are already there, Android devices are a few years behind, as are most desktop PCs.
Once there's critical mass, it would not be a stretch for ISPs to only deliver internet to endpoints that have a secure element that attests to the integrity of the internet-con ected device. This will of course be done under the guise of "fighting the spread of malware" and such.
iPhones have always been able to access web pages. Web pages run on general purpose computers, and basically have to, because they're made of site-specific content and site-specific code. To get rid of "piracy" you would not only need to prevent users from having access to their own phones, you would need to make it impossible for anybody to have their own web page.
That level of dystopia is the sort of thing that could never last very long because enough people would rather burn it to the ground while still inside of it than allow it to continue to exist.
when you try to connect to some commercial streaming websites in France, you already have to upload your ID, film yourself with your camera, and enable biometrics, as the government forced them to do that "to protect children" (even as they're in the middle of a scandal about silencing children when things went south in some institutions up to 20 years ago).
last time I checked, China didn't force users to give in their IDs and turn on webcams to authenticate themselves on the internet.
France does.
dystopia is never far away in France, and ppl always agree
> dystopia is never far away in France, and ppl always agree
Isn't the entire premise here that people are instead using pirate services that presumably don't require you to upload your ID and film yourself with a camera?
I actually use this exact example when encouraging careful attention to paradigms where a fundamental variable is slowly but consistently changing.
It's essentially equivalent to a boundary on a phase diagram: Cost/Watt has fallen past a critical threshold, and suddenly this dramatically different approach just makes more sense.
I am entirely convinced that absent LEO comsat constellations, people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people".
If you genuinely care about the field of astronomy, rest assured that the same falling launch costs that have enabled LEO comsat constellations, will enable the launch of fleets of space-based telescopes.
Yes, I am quite aware that the current generation of space-based telescopes are quite limited. And it's solely due to the historically extreme cost of mass to orbit.
The largest proposed ground observatories already use segmented mirrors. One can use the same approach in space, it's only a matter of launch cost.
Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people?
> people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people".
You've constructed a strawman for the purposes of gatekeeping; meanwhile, there very much is a reason to have a rational conversation about the trade offs of these large commercial ventures that impact literally the entire planet.
> Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people?
It doesn't, and admittedly I don't really care that much.
I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet, one of the most transformative and enabling technologies in existence, than niche hobbyists being mildly encumbered. And most people likely fall into the same camp.
As already mentioned, I find it really hard to believe that the common person whining about "the poor amateur astronomers" are being sincere. Some of them likely are, but "finding any reason possible to whine about billionaires" seems to be vogue these days.
> I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet
Then can you tell me how many remote communities were not being served before that are now suddenly capable of accessing the internet now that these particular constellations exist? I mean just looking at Starlink's current availability map shows how little you might actually care about this particular outcome.
Even so was this the most affordable and sustainable option for these countries? Was there absolutely no way to achieve both goals at once?
> I don't really care that much.
Noted. We're just picking sides today, I guess. Bummer.
You did notice that many of those areas are "Service Date Unknown," "Pending Regulatory Approval," and "Coming Soon?"
The first world has great coverage, I'll give you that, but to say that this network is somehow an inherent advantage to indigenous and under served "remote" people is quite literally laughable.
And yes, the Amazon is being served, and they have _faster_ internet than before, which is somewhat good and not without it's problems to be sure, but they had the internet before. They have smartphones. How did you think they utilize the starlink service at all? They have a pretty narrow power budget which this really doesn't help with all while delivering them deeper into the pockets of American monopolies.
Oh, and the mining and logging companies absolutely love that they have the service necessary to support their commercial work in the Amazon. High rating from them, they would agree, it's "amazing."
The ocean, planes, and all sorts of remote vehicles had internet before as well. This is nothing particularly new other than being faster. Which moves the question to the appropriate place. Is it worth damaging the sciences for faster commercial internet? Are we actually doing anything more than sending youtube poop and pornography and gambling websites into places that never had to deal with these intrusions before? All while enabling a higher rate of destruction of the very place they live?
I've always felt that trying to pin down the precise definition of AGI is as useless as trying to pin down "what it means to truly understand". It's a mental trap for smart people, that distracts them from focusing on the impacts of hard-to-define concepts like AGI.
AGI doesn't need to be "called", and there is no need for anyone to come to an agreement as to what its precise definition is. But at some point, we will cross that hard-to-define threshold, and the economic effects will be felt almost immediately.
We should probably be focusing on how to prepare society for those changes, and not on academic bullshit.
It's definitely a trap for those who aren't familiar with the existing academic work in philosophy, cognition, and neuroscience. There are no definitive answers but there are lots of relatively well developed ideas and concepts that everyone here on HN seems completely ignorant of, even though some of the ideas were developed by industry giants like Marvin Minsky.
Stuff like society of minds (Minksy), embodied cognition (Varela, Rosch, and Thompson), connectionist or subsymbolic views (Rumelhart), multiple intelligences (Gardner), psychometric and factor-analytic theories (Carroll), and all the other work like E. Hutchins. They're far from just academic wankery, there's a lot of useful stuff in there, it's just completely ignored by the AI crowd.
I'd encourage you to review the definition of "brute force", and then consider the absolutely immense combinatoric space represented by the grids these puzzles use.
"Brute force" simply cannot touch these puzzles. An amount of understanding and pattern recognition is strictly required, even with the large quantities of test-time compute that were used against arc-agi-1.
This is highly unlikely to be a mechanical limitation of the robotic arms. As others have said, it's likely an inference speed limitation - their model is understanding, reacting, and producing outputs as fast as its supporting hardware can.
But that all just poofs away in a year or two as inferencing hardware gets better/faster. And for many use cases, the slowness/awkwardness doesn't really matter as long as the job gets done.
"AI working in meatspace" was supposed to be hard, and its rapidly becoming clear that isn't going to be the case at all.
Robot demos have been stuck at that sort of speed for more than a decade and they didn't have to wait for a giant LLM to do inference. Why's that going to get any better now? And just in a year or two?
Offering humane end-of-life options to people suffering today does not prohibit ongoing disease research towards potentially helping people in the future.