As I understand it, the physical FPGA layout and timing information used for placement and routing is proprietary, and the vendors don’t want to share it. They’ll let you specify constraints for connections, but it has to go through their opaque solver. And to be fair, they do have to try to solve an NP-complete problem, so the slowness isn’t unjustified compared to all the other slow buggy software people have to deal with nowadays.
The institutions have failed to follow their own (supposed) standards, and failed to purge bad actors that subverted or abandoned those standards. Yes, ultimately it is the people at those institutions that have failed not the institution in the abstract, but their failure to be accountable triggers the only response the public has: to distrust or abandon existing institutions and seek or create new ones.
At some point human intellectual labor will have little to no value in any domain, pushing laborers into too-expensive-to-automate-efficiently jobs, which will likely be relatively unskilled physical labor where the cost of building and maintaining a robot exceeds the cost of hiring a human. If alignment is solved, almost all of humanity will be at the whims of the rulers of AI, a cheap labor force for whatever tasks AI needs to accomplish on behalf of its masters. If alignment isn’t solved all of humanity will be this labor force, probably by some brain hijacking nano machines, until AI designs something better suited than humans.
The future seems very grim. I find it highly unlikely that we will reliably solve alignment, and even if we do it seems equally unlikely that whoever controls AI will act on behalf of humanity’s interests, and not in pursuit of whatever their own goals are. Even where the AI revolution goes relatively well, it’s hard to see a future where the economics of physical labor vs robot labor don’t play out to the detriment of most humans, or one where humans cease being actors and become mere observers of something far beyond their reach.
The thing required isn’t a GUI for LLMs, it’s a visual model of code that captures all the behavior and is a useful representation to a human. People have floated this idea before LLMs, but as far as I know there isn’t any real progress, probably because it isn’t feasible. There’s so much intricacy and detail in software (and getting it even slightly wrong can be catastrophic), any representation that can capture said detail isn’t going to be interpretable at a glance.
There’s no visual model for code as code isn’t 2d. There’s 2 mechanism in the turing machine model: a state machine and a linear representation of code and data. The 2d representation of state machine has no significance and the linear aspect of code and data is hiding more dimensions. We invented more abstractions, but nothing that map to a visual representation.
Degrowth isn’t a realistic nor acceptable solution to climate change. People aren’t going to accept a lower standard of living because scientists and activists told them they should. The only solution is technological progress.
Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite.
It's already happening for many people today who had no choice in the matter while people in developed countries have an endless stream of excuses.
Degrowth is inevitable. The only difference is when it happens, which is dictated by our choices. We're speed running it and using every excuse we can come up with.
> Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite.
Thank you, I didn't know that was the real goal of the climate movement. Just one question: How do you intend to force unlivable conditions, which in turn will force lower standards of living? I mean, which is the cause and which the effect if they are at all different?
Also, you have to advertise your goals more aggressively, don't be timid. I imagine the billboards:
"Degrowth is inevitable"
"Fight for unlivable conditions and low standards of living for everyone except the elite".
60 percent of Americans can’t afford a basic quality of life. People are having less kids because of their economics globally. The existing system is the forcing function.
Living standards won’t increase because demographic dividends from growing working age populations is over, and total fertility rates are rapidly declining globally.
That went completely over your head. Was missing the point on purpose?
Climate change is already here and happening. You can easily see how it's changing global supply chains and agriculture. Many coastal and island people's have already had to relocate or are spending massive amounts of money trying to relocate(or mitigate sea level rise).
Tens of thousands of people are dropping dead every year from just the heat. Heat that's never hit their parts of the world. Then we have drought(desertification), hurricanes/typhoons of record size, dust storms, disease outbreaks, flooding, wildfire, extreme winter weather. The list is huge and obvious.
There are no lack of clear examples that the climate is becoming less hospitable to humans. And there's no denying it is being caused or accelerated by human behavior. Our models are accurate and paint a very clear picture of what's causing the climate to change: human consumption derived climate change.
Climate change is already forcing growth to slow. It won't be long until degrowth is happening. There are no downsides to curbing our consumption now.
The reality is we have been enjoying subsidized food and products since the industrial revolution. We have known our extreme-consumption is not sustainable since the 1960s. We've been taking on climate debt with our $3 patriot beef burgers and cheap plastic shit. The climate is now calling due on that debt.
Split and tenting solved all of my wrist and finger pain issues. I occasionally have to use a normal keyboard for work and pretty quickly get wrist pain and pain in my right pinky. 3x6 Corne is my favorite split layout.
National security is the obvious reason. That includes the ability to switch to a wartime economy, which requires low-tech manufacturing and resource extraction to not be reliant (and thus vulnerable) on imports from potential adversaries. Maintaining a talent pipeline is also important, we’re not going to be able to produce enough high skill machinists quickly enough when we need them because that takes time.
Manufacturing capital is primarily the value of onshoring manufacturing, the labor itself may not be particularly valuable at present, but the ability to repurpose it quickly is valuable. It would take the US much longer to build up the kind of manufacturing infrastructure and capital required to be self-sufficient than it will take China to build up the talent infrastructure and intellectual capital required to replace the US. China has no shortage of intelligent and driven people.
Advanced manufacturing (mainly thinking of semiconductors but there are other areas) is increasing in value with AI development, and has been increasingly valuable with prior digitization. It was a mistake for prior (pre-CHIPS) US administrations to not subsidize it.
There are other good reasons: not everyone in society can be upskilled. You need jobs for the lower and middle class that afford them decent lives. Only having high skill high education jobs and low skill low education jobs leaves people in the middle with limited opportunities for economic mobility.
The best national security is for it to be in the interest of the counter party to trade with you rather than attack you.
Tariffs and protectionism tilt the favor closer to attack. In the extreme, a nation that completely refuses to trade can't offer nor take anything beyond spoils of war.
> The best national security is for it to be in the interest of the counter party to trade with you rather than attack you.
Sure, but if your biggest export is your country's particular flavor of monopoly money, is it actually in your counterparty's best interests to trade with you?
Why do I need to trade with you when I can just rob you blind at gunpoint? What you're describing isn't sufficient leverage because you won't have jurisdiction to control trade in the future.
The more things you can prove are invariant, the easier it is to reason about a piece of code, and doing the hoisting in the code itself rather than expecting the compiler to do it will make future human analysis easier when it needs to be updated or debugged.
Interesting article. I heard SUPERHOT VR was a really good (if not one of the best) VR games when released. I’ll probably pirate it if I ever get around to playing it now.
I disagree with the author on whether ‘woke’ is an accurate term to use here, I don’t think it completely fits but there is no better widely used term for this kind of moral hypersensitivity where someone believes they have authority over what other people should or shouldn’t be allowed to see or experience based on how they _think_ a hypothetical person might react to said art, media, etc. It might be more accurate to describe it as illiberal but that is rather vague.
I would call this behavior solipsistic: the maker only engages with a caricature of their audience that happens to perfectly confirm their preconceptions, while handwaving away very simple and logical objections from the people in the room.
The weirdest part is them dressing it up as "you deserve better" when they are clearly ignoring their existing paying customers and retroactively stealing back content that was published and paid for.
The excuse that people didn't discover the toggle to skip disturbing scenes is ridiculous: just show it on first launch.
I suspect and wonder whether superhot vr was simply forced to remove this content to get first party promotion on certain platforms, and the reason it sounds illogical is because of Sinclair's maxim: they act like they don't understand because their income depends on not understanding it.
It’s made pretty clear that their motivations are entirely internal. This seems more like an artist defacing their work because they feel strong negativity towards it. He says the original story was written out of depression, so it seems reasonable to conclude he was maybe suicidal at the time, no longer is, and feels repulsed by seeing his own suicidal ideation reflected back at him. That’d be an understandable reaction. The only issue is that the work was already shared with the world and copies sold. Ethically, he's fine to change future versions, but eliminating the version that people already paid for crosses a line. It seems like consumers should be allowed access to at least whatever version was available when they made their purchase.
reply