You know, that 30% figure is already enough to make it hard to express the value and power that the 1% control in terms of money - the numbers just don't seem real. In practice they will never face a financial obstacle and can treat money (or their stuff as valued in money) as worth whatever they want it to be at the time.
In that sense the fact that Bitcoin valuations are basically made-up by whales and exchanges is pretty obvious to understand.
There's got to be some kind of licensing clarity that can be actually legislated. This is just straight-up price gouging through obscurantism.
AI finally allowing grooming at scale is the kind of thing I'd expect to be the setup for a joke about Silicon Valley libertarians, not something that's actually happening.
Computer scientists hate him: solve the halting problem by smashing all running computers with a sledgehammer.
Sure we've been laying the groundwork for this for decade, but we wanted someone from our cult of personality to undermine democracy and replace it with explicit billionaire rule, not someone with his own cult of personality.
I know next to nothing about C++ but I do know that I heard that closing line in the original voice and got goosebumps.
I'm pretty sure you could download a decent markov chain generator onto a TI-89 and do basically the same thing with a more in-class appropriate tool, but speaking as someone with dogshit handwriting I'm so glad to have graduated before this was a concern. Godspeed, my friend.
There's a whole lot of ontological confusion going on here, and I want to make sure I'm not going too far in the opposite direction. Information, in the mathematical Shannon-ian sense, basically refers specifically to identifying one out of a possible set of values. In that sense, no underlying physical state could be said to hold "more" information than any other, right? Like, depending on the encoding a given amount of information can use a different amount of space on a channel (TRUE vs T vs 1), but just changing which arrangement of bits is currently in use doesn't increase or decrease the total amount of information in the channel. I'm sure there's some interesting physics to be done about our ability to meaningfully read or write to a given amount of space (something something quantum something something) but the idea of information somehow existing independently rather than being projected into the probability distribution of states in the underlying physical world is basically trying to find the physical properties of the Platonic forms or find the mass of the human soul.
No V0ldek, you are the small shell script. And then V0ldek was a zombie process.
Obviously mathematically comparing suffering is the wrong framework to apply here. I propose a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics. The best shrimp is a tasty one, the best man is a philosopher-king who agrees with everything I say, and the best EA never gets past drunkenly ranting at their fellow undergrads.
I mean, that kind of suggests that you could use chatGPT to confabulate work for his class and he wouldn't have room to complain? Not that I'd recommend testing that, because using ChatGPT in this way is not indicative of an internally consistent worldview informing those judgements.
Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.