Exactly, they deliver products that are better than their competition and thanks to that they got extremely rich. It's a great example of capitalism working as intended.
I'm 100% certain it will sell out at the release and you will have to wait few months to get it. I don't know where people get the idea that only few people will be able to afford that phone.
Extra-EU immigrants are not uniform group. E.g. in Denmark non-western migrants at some point are (weakly) positive net contributors to public finances, but MENAPT immigrants are on avg. net negative their entire life. https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=8...
Something tells me that you have some kind of anti-AI agenda and that you are not really looking at things objectively. Maybe it’s your nick “ai_fry_your_brain”, maybe it’s “ If you disagree with me, you're a slopper.”, who knows!
Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.
By that logic an abacus has human-like attributes. Just because it can simulate the processes involved does not mean it is at all practical to compute them.
Besides, LLMs are not a simulation of the physics involved in human consciousness to begin with.
This is the right take. In my opinion, AI can’t ever be conscious but I can’t really prove it - moreover it’s not even a scientific stance because it’s not even falsifiable. But it probably doesn’t matter.
Physically describable doesn't mean computable. You're making too many unjustified logical leaps which makes your argument circular & conflates "physical" w/ "computable".
We don't know any physical processes that allow to compute Turing-incomputable functions. An assumption that the brain uses such a process is not based on any positive knowledge.
Argument from ignorance is not as well known as other fallacies but very common in discussions about sentience, consciousness, and computability, i.e. not having evidence for something doesn't mean that thing is false. It is possible there are physical processes that are not computable & not being aware of such processes doesn't mean the alternative (everything is computable) is true.
So instead of making any unjustifiable claims like "everything physical is computable" you should instead just say "I believe consciousness is computable and that is why it is possible to instantiate it on any computational substrate, including strategy games like Age of Empires, properly arranged dominoes, and water wheels".
OK. I know that we haven't found any processes that violate the physical Church-Turing thesis, and I believe that we will not find them in the brain that got intelligent enough only after scaling to a hundred billion of neurons and hundreds of trillions of synapses. And, BTW, we don't have theories (except the controversial Orch OR) that allow such computations.
"Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."
Because computers don't actually do arithmetic, they simulate it. When you take 2 sticks, add 2 sticks, and obtain 4 sticks, that's arithmetic. Having a raised flag with one lowered flag to the right and the left of it and then changing this configuration to having a single raised flag with two lowered flags right to it, and interpreting this charade as having added 2 to 2 and obtained 4 — that's just a simulation. It didn't actually have added 2 and 2 of anything.
Well, if I write "2 + 2 = 4" on a piece of paper, am I doing arithmetic, or merely simulating it? After all, there are no sticks involved.
But I'm also willing to accept that a computer is simulating arithmetic, and not actually doing it. That makes no difference to me, as long as the output is the same. In fact it's kind of a boring distinction to make.
No. It's a k-type curve where the high deciles are getting higher and the lows are getting lower, so to speak.
There is increasingly becoming more of a divide between haves and have nots, and it has a temporal component because of how equity has appreciated over the last decade or so. Both housing and stocks.
People from a decade ago have seen absolutely unsustainable appreciation in their assets while doing nothing. That is putting them at structural advantages against younger generations that will not see those same appreciations. It's like the bus has left without them. No matter how hard and fast they run, someone asleep on the bus will always be ahead of them.
Ok I did, and I still have no clue where you’re pulling your numbers from. This shows the bottom quartile has the lowest median growth rate in nominal wages. So low in fact it’s negative. In nominal wages. Not even accounting for inflation.
What if I don’t care about affording more things? And instead want to live in an ethical society that prioritizes stability and universal access to housing, healthcare, and education?
I can go into detail, but for the sake of the argument let’s define it in the Norquist fashion: a government small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. A stricter definition might be anything beyond and to include minarchism.
I think the argument that minarchists take is that federal law should be modified to only cover military, courts, and police. A coherent libertarian could only interface with those, although it would be difficult and probably start to look very much like the commune types. The Jeffersonian yeoman farmer ideal seems like the clearest example. The larger point is that both extremes seem incompatible with modernity.
Right, that’s the yeoman farmer ideal I brought up. I just don’t think that works with anything remotely like modern society so it’s a romantic but impractical idea. IMO it can only work in relatively small groups, just like the commune. Once society reaches a certain level of complexity, necessary practical tradeoffs erode that romanticism.
That’s a real aspect, but only one dimension. Nonetheless, it’s telling that it’s what you distill the entire problem down to. There are many other problems that make the problem hard:
a) these communities often depend on consensus decision making. Problems that require collective action get nearly impossible when the society gets too big
b) People underestimate how much they depend on greater society in a modern context
c) It’s normal for future generations to have evolving values. The original idealistic notions tend to lose their luster to those who were born into it
There are others more unique to communes, but I highlighted those because they also make it hard for the inverse libertarian ideal to work as well. Meaning it has to do as much with human nature as any ideology.
> And instead want to live in an ethical society that prioritizes stability and universal access to housing, healthcare, and education?
Then talk to your local NIMBY. Housing crisis is not due to capitalism being evil, but due to constraining people from building. Healthcare is getting better all the time, we had MASSIVE breakthroughs this year at ASCO (which were made possible by big pharma!). As for education yeah, it could be better but it's completely tangential to the topic.
I think a lot of these statements are, at best, incomplete. For example, healthcare quality can get better while access gets lower, still resulting in worse outcomes for patients. Or, housing cost should be normalized based on size since until recently, houses have been getting larger on average.
i think the reason for your deluge of downvotes is that a society the promotes more things becoming affordable is one that prioritizes stability. universal access to housing, healthcare, and education that people want is only possible in a society that is immensely productive.
reply