Funny, for me it seems terrible exactly for the opposite reason. These kinds of baskets are too heavily weighted by things that go relatively down in costs like technology and airplane tickets.
The monetary reason is that the reason those things go down is because of technology advances and not because of changes in the value of the currency. Inflation should be about the currency, and less about what cool advances people are doing to make cheaper TVs and better websites
The practical reason is that if the basics like rent and food go up relative to wages, then a lot of people end up crushed by the basics alone and have no disposable income left for the cool stuff. The baskets are often too biased towards spending patterns of those who live the good life and for whom luxuries actually matter
>Funny, for me it seems terrible exactly for the opposite reason. These kinds of baskets are too heavily weighted by things that go relatively down in costs like technology and airplane tickets.
Airline fares make up a whopping 1.04% of the CPI basket. "Information technology commodities" makes up a whopping 0.752%. Meanwhile the weights of essentials are: Food (13.507%), Energy (7.418%), Shelter (35.323%), Medical care services (6.834)
If LLM's are going to keep finding vulnerabilities of this magnitude, we'll be sure to face a computer worm event of unprecedented scale soon. Best be ready for the moment the lights turn off
I hope the LLM's will tackle theoretical physics next. If you think the math community is bad in terms of gatekeeping, and it is, the physics community is so much worse. Even community insiders are afraid to share their more unusual ideas at risk of becoming pariah's, outsiders have no chance. And that while they seem more or less stuck in their current track.
Admittedly it's also just really hard to come up with something better than the current track, but doing better has to start with being eager to explore different directions. Even if the new directions don't quite work just yet. And that eagerness just isn't there in the community, new directions are threats to the careers of sensitive people
Theoretical physics would, from my outsider view nowadays, benefit from an injection of vitality and an ability to tackle new venues. But the question is open whether LLMs can truly break new ground or if they work within the convex hull of current theory. And if that matters, too.
No, based on the professions named within the inscriptions. If a province has relatively many professions that are rare for the WRE, then it's considered more complex. See the paper for the actual estimates, the map in the article does not show the complexity estimation
Imo, the best solution is to just keep every time/date format eternally backwards compatible. And if you do need a change, whether that's leap seconds or daylights saving changes or whatnot: just create a new format
Except now there's no longer any guarantees there's even any people you can point at. It's already often diffuse responsbilitiy. Maybe today you can still sort of get around that by pointing at business/organization owners. But soon we're going to see situations where that isn't even realistic. For example if AI agents start spinning up their own agents which work outside of the control of anyone. We're going to need some way to deal with that.
Agents run on computers, those computers have owners. We have to maintain accountability and not let people who stand to get rich from privatizing the profits but socializing the risk of rogue agents from continuing to push a narrative of autonomous super intelligence that is “too powerful” to control.
That narrative is bullshit. Intelligence is not power. The power comes from hooking these agents up to everything without proper safety controls. The fact that those safety controls don’t exist yet is not humanity’s problem, it’s the frontier labs problem, and we can’t let them wriggle out of it with an Overton window shift or demanding that the government take responsibility via regulation (of course they should but it doesn’t absolve the labs of responsibility for their own actions).
Right, but if the agents broke into the computers and are hosting themselves there without the owners knowledge, are the owners responsible? We'd say whoever originated them is responsible, but what if that can no longer be determined?
Yes, like pretty much everything else, there is gray area. We can have split liabilities for different aspects of these failures. It's long been the case that people may not know what's running on their computers (botnets, etc), and I would argue there should be some form liability for your computer being used to do bad things. It should be proportionate and obviously a lot less than the principals. But keep in mind these rogue AI agents can't just hang out on someone's personal hardware, they need a lot of compute.
The missing piece right now is that our AI safety and cybersecurity controls are simply not up to snuff with the current risks that AI has introduced. Given the increased risk, we need to level up every aspect of our cybersecurity stance. These are hard problems, but not impossible given proper incentives. The issue is that no one is connecting the dots between the creation of these agents and the tools and access they are given, with the harm they may produce. Often the argument jumps straight to "it's going to get too smart for us to control" while glossing over the fact that all the power AI has was directly given to it by human choices. All this cognitive dissonance and willful blindness is caused by unchecked capitalist incentives. Think of the amount of money every single person in the frontier labs stands to make if the most optimistic predictions pan out. This is moral hazard of the highest order, and the only counter-measure that can work in our current social and political system is liability.
> Agents run on computers, those computers have owners.
and catering to them (boxes) to not accidentally start disseminating child porn is most commonly understood as a responsibility of the owner, the moment he plugs his device online.
This is also why legal action must be taken against OpenAI for the Hugging Face incident, as well as any similar incidents. Their computer, their programs, their responsibility.
Why would that need a new way? Or do you mean that no-one ever spun up anything at all (e.g., agent zero was never spun up or allowed to be spun up by anyone)?
>these companies need to adhere to the scientific community rather than expecting the opposite
Why? The pre-existing community doesn't own science.
Considering how hostile the community sometimes is to outsiders, how they frequently demand form over function and think connections are often more important than correctness of argument, perhaps it's good for them to be confronted with a new approach to science that does away with those things and returns to the real cornerstones: proof and empiricism.
If you don't want to engage with proofs that's your call, many of us are happy to see progress being made and don't need you specifically for the confirmation
I think this happens all the time actually, but it's often smaller scale. Like someone writes a neat architecture to do X at their company, and later someone else walks in, looks at this code and sees it's now super easy to do Y, which then turns out to have immense user/business value.
I have had periods where I mostly gave up on books because I actually rarely found them to be the right level of stimulating. Novels rarely stimulate, or even when they do, it often comes with relatively little learning per unit of time. Meanwhile some books such as advanced physics textbooks can be so overwhelmingly difficult and have so many missing prerequisites that you hit a brick wall in understanding and also learn little.
Now even knowing some great books exist, it can be quite difficult to find those works in the goldilocks zone of being worthwhile while accessible enough. So difficult even that the part where you are searching becomes so time consuming that it still ends up missing the mark on stimulation or learning per hour.
And so generally I find programming or working on other intellectual projects more worthwhile than reading, and reading books has kind of drifted into being a low stimulation activity I do when I'm tired or don't have the focus time for projects.
How do you get around that? How do you find and select what is actually worthwhile to read?
The monetary reason is that the reason those things go down is because of technology advances and not because of changes in the value of the currency. Inflation should be about the currency, and less about what cool advances people are doing to make cheaper TVs and better websites
The practical reason is that if the basics like rent and food go up relative to wages, then a lot of people end up crushed by the basics alone and have no disposable income left for the cool stuff. The baskets are often too biased towards spending patterns of those who live the good life and for whom luxuries actually matter
reply