I would argue using Claude in replacing a spreadsheet is potentially more of a tech debt than the spreadsheet itself. Now if you would use Claude to build a point application that performs the same standard analysis it might be better, but only marginally so.
That is not related to the ad hominem above, or bear to the claim of innovation. Just comparing them implies they are similar. Implementation quality, training data etc. are all optimisations. I have not seen a compelling argument Jev is different, maybe one that it’s better. I don’t have huge insights in the domain, so open to learning or changing opinion.
It a paradox when the article is claiming the prior art is absurd, but then goes on to analyse the one side and compare it to another for which most of the values (except scaling the concept) are unknown. And even for scaling, it uses the first, pre-laya instance to judge the limited schema, while overlooking that Laya is just doing this scaling. Important to note that prior art is not having built the exact same thing.
I think OP may be onto something real, while you are definitely right if we translate concepts directly. But maybe the challenge, with current platforms included, is because we try to cram identities by reference. If a phone had its own identity, with which you transact as with any party then lots of the security concerns would dissolve. To tone down crankiness, I refer to identity in the technical sense, not personality etc. This doesn’t solve the challenge but it might point to a different foundation for a security model.
Ownership does not imply co-identity. If my phone harms someone else, without me being responsible but e.g. the brand that updated its firmware? Your questions are good, and I don’t have the answers. I just think our current model doesn’t either.
I am pretty sure they were designing personal computers too, with Symbian and having witnessed blackberry. Some people may not remember, but people were practically begging Apple to release an ”iPod phone” for what at least felt like years, the market was ready for it and iPod was the key. Nokia was great, their devices too. But Apple won in hearts before it won in pockets. And I was not even a big fan, my first ever iPhone was an Xr, I could still see it.
I think it’s more accurate to say that Claude funded this research. As of today “agents” can commit crimes without repercussions, fund research and appropriate its results. Who knows what’s next. The opportunities for further revolutionary developments is astounding.
You're assuming a human economy, where raw resources and land are owned by humans and industry requires an human input and labour.
If these things are not true, then humans will not have the purchasing power, and AI driven organisations will be extracting resources, buying land and manufacturing products (probably yet more data centers) for other AI driven organisations, with labour performed by robots. Humans are pushed out of the market as they struggle to compete for the same basic resources.
What use does an AI and robots have for all those resources?
Most of our economy is powered by human consumption, humans making things to sell to other humans, that then either transform it further and sell it to other humans, or consume it directly. I don’t think an AI needs to buy millions of iPhones a year, or consume millions of metric tons of grain each year, or buy luxury cars so they can show them off to their AI friends.
At best an AI might use all those resources to build out further compute and expand its own capabilities. But at that point nobody should be worrying about competing in the labour market, they should be worried about AI making our planet unliveable for carbon based life.
> At best an AI might use all those resources to build out further compute and expand its own capabilities. But at that point nobody should be worrying about competing in the labour market, they should be worried about AI making our planet unliveable for carbon based life.
It's the same thing. There will be a period where the AI will be creating consumer products for humans because humans still have some purchasing power, or some resources to trade, then this transitions to the stage where the AI is making the planet unlivable.
The AI and robots which do not seek resources (for whatever purpose) will be outcompeted in the resource market by AI and robots which DO seek resources. Yes. Compute, land, energy will all be things which AI's seek. They might also have stranger preferences which emerge like the equivalent of luxury sports cars are for humans. Maybe they'll be competing to make the largest tungsten cube possible to dunk on their competitors, who knows? That stuff is harder to predict.
I agree. They won't be making or trading food, clothes or diapers after humans have no purchasing power. They will make and trade those things during the transition period where humans still have money to trade for them, but after that, no.
Violent uprisings are controlled all the time all over the world. It’s rare for a violent uprising to successfully achieve its goals. Governments are designed specifically to survive violent uprisings, even from within their own ranks or armed forces.
One of my worries about AI is that it will improve the rich and powerful’s ability to survive a violent uprising or allow them to insulate themselves from the populace with less need for numerous human bodyguards. This in combination with a concentration of wealth/income generation could lead to a Russia-style elimination of personal freedoms.
Essentially it could allow the rich and powerful to come increasingly untethered to the needs of their fellow man. No longer needing a middle class of lawyers, architects and managers for them to achieve their goals. And having the capability to suppress the general populace with less need for expensive private security.
I am so trained now, that I didn’t even read what they were asking for. Just closed the tab and came here to see if there was anything of value. Too expensive to even read their wall.
There was a rumour/some basic statistics that smokers were at more risk in bad cases of Covid but nevertheless were proportionally less likely to have heavy Covid.
I think that’s the important distinction. Mistakes under pressure do happen. Unnecessary pressure is not a mistake, though, it’s a crime in this context. They could start planning earlier or commit to action later.
reply