I’m arguing against the assertion that “China is doing the most damage to the climate”. It’s obvious that the country with more citizens will cause more emissions, and it’s also completely useless! Or would you suddenly change your mind if China split into 5 countries, all less populous than the US?
Why should a Chinese person reduce their emissions, while each American emits so much more? You insist that arbitrary geographic divisions are somehow relevant, but they aren’t.
And because total emissions matter, we all have a bigger responsibility to reduce our per-capita output if we’re above others. The atmosphere and climate don’t care about countries, so each American still has a much higher responsibility to change their society than each Chinese does.
I’m guessing they meant sonar instead. AFAIK active sonar does work really well, but is rarely used since it reveals your location twice as far as you’re able to detect others. Not to mention the horrible effects on wildlife - the sound waves carry so much energy that a point-blank hit is somewhere between “lethal & untreatable” and “turned into red mist”.
I don’t think it’s realistically possible to do that totally undetected. Since the earth’s magnetic field is so weak and field strength goes down rapidly as distance increases, malicious actors probably couldn’t spoof patterns well enough to make the data look real, at least not without coming very close and staying near their target.
Aw. I hope they at least feel really swole, so they get something out of it
I’ll have you know that Reacher cannot help his overactive steroid gland!
They still need us to advance AI until it’s able to self-improve. That’s why they’re pumping so much money into scaling. Once they have that, we’ll have lost all leverage - that’s what their evaluations are based on.
I don’t think the current approach can achieve this, but it looks like they’ll do their damndest to try. They’ve already prepared for the worst, and if they can choose between X years before everything goes to shit, or X minus ? years before it goes to shit BUT they get AGI to play with in their bunkers…
Yes, that’s why they’re investing so much into AI. They can’t wait to get rid of us.
Ah, so you’d need an impulse around the apogee, and acceleration around just the perigee can’t create a stable orbit? Makes sense, thanks!
They’ll slow down whenever they hit their original altitude (or lower), no? Is it impossible for this to result in a stable higher orbit?
Unfortunately there’s still plenty of unencrypted traffic from normal usage (e.g. DoH is still fairly rare).
I knew exactly what video this would be from the quote. Timeless classic!
If every AI company steals the public data separately, it means massively increased costs for everyone who is getting their data stolen. If the AI companies “steal” from each other it’s much better for everyone else.
Hm, alright, I can see that - but to me, this is an example of business practices that the GDPR is explicitly trying to restrict. Of course it will be difficult to delete someone’s data if you’ve been sharing it with many other companies.
Could you expand on some of these challenges? We haven’t had these issues in any companies I’ve worked at, but those were mostly on the smaller side.
Weird question to ask through radio, over.
AI could be useful if it could orchestrate more complex tasks that the relevant apps don’t natively support. But of course that’s not what we’re getting.
I use lots and lots of timers every day to structure my chores and work. For example, I’d sometimes love to be able to start one timer, and have another one set to automatically start as soon as I stop the ringing from the first (which might take a few minutes).
Very simple requirements, but specialized enough that I’d have to write it myself. But I can’t see phone AIs supporting something like this in this decade.
That’s good! But I’d still prefer if I and the other 44% could at least say “please stop producing and sending us trash”.
They should really make mailed advertisements opt-in, but of course the industry won’t do that. And this what makes it cancerous IMO: they never give up trying to inject ads into people’s lives.
OTOH, it seems like ~44% of junk mail gets thrown away without ever being opened: https://zerojunkmail.org/environmental-impact
That’s a bunch of environmental destruction and personal annoyances caused, so the label “cancer” seems fair to me.
Buddy, if you spend a couple seconds thinking about my question, you might notice that “We all do need to cut our emissions” is not an answer. I’ll try to put it in more explicit terms, try not knee-jerk-reacting this time:
Why should a person in China stop increasing their emissions to make profits, while so many people in America make so much profit/save money by emitting so much more on average?
You’re acting like this question obviously has a definitive answer, but it doesn’t!
Look, it’s totally fine to criticize China’s rising emissions on their own. But it’s really, really dumb to contrast their total with total US emissions - especially when you don’t mention anything about how many emissions are caused to supply the west with stuff. It’s great that US emissions are going down, but they’re still way too high because they provide cover for other nations to save money by using fossil fuels just a bit longer. Why are other countries morally wrong in climbing towards the level of America, as long as they stay below?