While cool, I am surprised this is considered noteworthy enough for an article. There's so much experimentation constantly going on with these models, what makes this special? It's more like the inspiration for a creepypasta.

Burning someone's work would most often just make you seem deranged. But don't muddy the waters here, the key point is it must be legal. And if someone wants to make it illegal, that's the rare good reason to actually do it.

Gorgeous!

AI might not survive the next decade? I already use it every day at work. The productivity gains are enormous and far from saturated. I think it's more likely that AI will survive and consumers (humans) will not survive.

Thanks! I don't live somewhere with such a hot climate

Could someone explain this to me? Why would this harm the strikers?

Easy to believe that you improved quality of life and achieved some savings, but the other poster specifically cited improvements in financial health after >50% cut which has me puzzled

Not sure how much income taxes are for you but the gross difference is $65k and I'll assume you take home at least half of that. So $32k. Just curious like which specific categories of items were costing you tens of thousands of dollars that you were able to cut out? Is this the famous American medical expenses mainly? Just trying to be able to understand

I don't think we can consider AI as a monoloth. A text to image AI surely has no conception at all of what a city is for. An LLM might have such a concept, but I wouldn't be worried about what it thinks based on limitations of a totally unrelated model.

I think your experience that your finances are better on $45k than $110k is quite mysterious and could do with some further elucidation

Here are two groups of claims I disagree with that I think you must agree with

1 - brains do things that a computer program can never do. It is impossible for a computer to ever simulate the computation* done by a brain. Humans solve the halting problem by doing something a computer could never do.

2 - It is necessary to solve the halting problem to write computer programs. Humans can only write computer programs because they solve the halting problem first.

*perhaps you will prefer a different word here

I would say that:

• it doesn't require solving any halting problems to write computer programs
• there is no general solution to the halting problem that works on human brains but not on computers.
• computers can in principle simulate brains with enough accuracy to simulate any computation happening on a brain. However, there would be far cheaper ways to do any computation.

Which of my statements do you disagree with?

Given that humans can write computer programs, how can you argue that the undecidability of the halting problem stops intelligent agents from being able to write computer programs?

I don't understand what you mean about the borrow checker in Rust or block instruction reordering. These are certainly not attempts at AI or AGI.

What exactly does AGI mean to you?

This stuff should all be obvious, but here we are.

This is not necessary. Please don't reply if you can't resist the temptation to call people who disagree with you stupid.