Could everyone who seriously thought AI was a stochastic parrot and said AI would go nowhere and talked as if you knew everything... could you admit your just wrong, and apologize for acting like you were an expert in something you never understood. This is likely about 50% of HN. I forgive you all, it's ok.
Nobody can pace the frontier it’s suicide as a business. Why would I use Claude if codex has a clearly superior model? As long as one company doesn’t pace… no one can pace. Thats capitalism for you.
Ironically either communism or an oligopoly are the only viable ways to pace the frontier.
The solar cells are tightly glued to the glass. Glass is easily recyclable but obtaining it and cleaning it is nearly impossible. It's also treated with antimony to increase its durability which limits how you can handle it. About 90% of all glass in solar panels has been landfilled.
A minor point anyways. Glass is not exactly a precious resource.
The most valuable parts are obviously the silver (about 50% of a panel's scrap value despite being 0.1% by weight), aluminum (about 20% of value), silicon (about 15%), and copper wiring (about 10%).
We are only just beginning to figure out techniques to reclaim the silver using thermal heating and chemical leaching techniques
A 1 square meter solar panel that weighs around 10kg contains under half a kg of actual doped silicon photovoltaic cells, with the remaining >95% being mainly aluminium framing, glass to cover the cells, and some backing material and wiring, all of which are trivially recyclable. So even if the doped silicon wasn't recyclable (which it is with a little more effort than the other materials) that's hardly the majority of the material that goes into making a solar panel.
The irony is that the less appealing posters would take a human artist much more skill and time to create.
Humans actually prefer minimalist designs with basic flat shapes with flat colors which ironically is trivial to create and can be done without AI or talent. Most people can’t even create anything remotely close to the less appealing posters by hand.
This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.
There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.
Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.
The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.
The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.
> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.
You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.
The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.
It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.
No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.
Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.
No, the Germans had good statistical data linking smoking (as well as asbestos and other carcinogens) to cancer by the 1930s; this was known and ignored (or actively derided) by the allies. It's one of the classic and well known examples of ad hominem.
I sincerely wonder how this is going to work given the large divergence in lifestyle preferences between these generations. Real estate especially will be an interesting one - lots of young people either cannot (due to employment situations) or actively choose not to live in the areas that their parents did. What will happen when these houses hit the market? How will this huge supply increase affect the people who do live there? Nobody I know is moving to Pennsyltucky to live in their parents' house even if it's free... will it crater property values for all of the hard-working townies who sunk their money into their own homes?
Top 5 billionaires ≈ bottom 40% of Americans — roughly 135 million people.
(The bottom quarter of households have essentially zero or negative net worth, so most of that $2.2T sits with people in the 25th–40th percentile range. It's an estimate — the Fed doesn't publish fine-grained slices — but 5 people vs ~135 million is about where it evens out.)
Imagine a world where mathematics is not understood by any human. Theorems and mountains of proof papers are constructed on a daily basis by automated machines at a rate far to quick for humans to understand.
These theorems DO benefit humanity but are largely unseen. You ask the LLM to make you an app. The LLM makes the app and utilizes entire languages, theories and processes made by discoveries that you as a human are not a privvy to. It all goes into the this body of knowledge only decipherable by AI.
This is the future AS long as current trendlines stay the same. As long as progress keeps going at the rate it currently is going. This is the best predictor.
Personally, and I have no evidence for this though, I think we'll hit another barrier and AI will stop making progress for about a couple decades or so. So humanity still has some time to have fun before something gets over the hump.
His post is implying that you are in denial. AI is becoming smarter then you and you can't admit this to yourself.
^^ that is what he is saying. I'm not saying this, he's saying this. And you should probably think about whether what he said is true or false.
reply