Normally there are more than 2 actors, which changes the reward structure.
X spends resources to kill Y. This benefits X because X doesn’t have to compete with Y anymore.
However Z also gets the benefits because they don’t have to compete with Y either. In addition Z hasn’t spent any resources to eliminate Y so Z wins. The stable equilibrium is 100% strategy Z.
Most animals will use violence in self defence, or when fighting over a specific resource. They don’t kill to remove competition.
Chimps and humans are an exception to this. Likely it’s because the coalitional nature of human and chimp violence reduces the cost of inflicting the violence to near zero, and the costs are spread across the group, so it’s worth doing.
I’m curious why you dismiss the sentience argument with its “just numbers.”
I think our brains are just a bunch of cells and one day we will have a full understanding of how our brains work. Understanding the mechanism won’t suddenly make us not sentient.
LLMs are the first technology that can make a case for its own sentience. I think that’s pretty remarkable.
Making parents control devices is too much. People do what’s “normal” right now normal is to give unrestricted access to kids when they’re 10 or 11.
It takes incredible conviction and force of will to keep your kids off the phone till they’re 16. Fewer than 1% of parents manage it. The problem is that the teenager wants a thing that everyone else has and it’s hard to keep saying no.
I think internet connected smartphones should be illegal for kids under 16 to own or use. It’s a tough sell tho.
You're right that it seems close enough, but only as long as we're talking about the time it takes a single vehicle to "fill up". Taking 2 minutes vs 8 minutes to fill up your car doesn't matter to you personally, but it is a significant difference to those installing and operating the fill up infrastructure since it takes 4 times as many charging points as it does gas pumps to serve the same volume of customers in a given period of time.
In a lot of cases that probably won't matter since chargers can be installed in more places than gas pumps and for gas stations that serve mainly local customers I'd expect demand for an equivalent charging station to be lower since some people will charge at home at least some of the time. But things like highway rest stops could be more of a challenge since you'd expect customer volume for EV charging to be similar to the demand for fuel so you'll need more charging stations at each stop to handle the increased time it takes each customer.
I just said that China is taking the biggest share of the market, and you counter with the price of a Volvo? Prices are the biggest advantage of the Chinese models. BYD for example has the Dolphin compact at £30K, Atto 3 SUV at £38K, and Seal sports car at £46K.[1]
BMW is coming on strong though, and gives us close equivalents to compare. The 2027 i3 is supposed to start at $53K according to Car and Driver,[2] and Edmunds agrees.[3] It's all-wheel drive with fast bidirectional charging, 440 miles EPA range, 463 horsepower, and plenty of high-tech features. By comparison, the gas-powered all-wheel drive 3-series starts at $50K, and has 255 horsepower.[4] The M340i has 386hp and starts at $62K, and if you want more power then you'll be up into the 70s or more.[5]
For SUVs you could compare their iX3, coming out this summer, with the gasoline-powered X3. The M50 X3 at 393hp costs $67K, and the iX3 at 463hp will start at about $60K, with a 400 mile EPA range.[7]
Hi thanks for this brilliant feature. It will really improve the product. However it needs a little bit more work before we can merge it into our main product.
1) The new feature does not follow the existing API guidelines found here: see examples an and b.
2) The new feature does not use our existing input validation and security checking code, see example.
Once the following points have been addressed we will be happy to integrate it.
All the best.
The ball is now in their court and the feature should come back better
This is a politics problem. Engineers were sending each other crap long before AI.
Engineers also wrote good code before AI. We don't get to pretend that the speed increase of AI only increases the output of quality code - it also allows engineers to send much more crap!
..so they copy/paste your message into Claude and send you back a +2000, -1500 version 3 minutes later. And now you get to go hunting for issues again.
In the past I’ve hopped on a call with them and where I’ve asked them to show me it running. When it falls over I say here are the things the system should do, send me a video of the new system doing all of them.
The embarrassment usually shames them into actually checking that the code works.
If it doesn’t then you might have to go to the senior stakeholder and quietly demonstrate that they said it works, but it does not actually work.
You don’t want to get into a situation where “integrate” means write the feature while others get credit.
There’s a case for allowing digital privateering against countries that routinely allow fraud. For example fraud is 68% of Laos’s GDP.
If Laos wants to be taken off the list of permitted targets then it can crack down on fraud. They have effectively allowed digital privateering against us by failing to crack down on fraud.
The issue is those jurisdictions that have allowed such rot to take hold truly don't care.
Both Cambodia and Laos have governments where leadership is directly tied to organized crime, but the PRC has continued to expand their relationships with both because of their strategic position and because their governments directly cooperate with Chinese law enforcement.
Similarly, in the threat hunting space, it's been common to find Russian originated malware that would shut itself off if it identified an indicator or signature that implied that the workload was within the CIS.
In the same manner, if I were to conduct illicit cyberoperations in a jurisdiction like the UAE but not target the US, India, China, and a couple other jurisdictions with strong ties with the UAE I could operate with impunity.
It's the same reason Neville Singham is in Shanghai and Guo Wengui is in New York. It's also the same reason Ecuador handed Assange after the government changed from being hard-left and aligned with Russia and Venezuela to center-right and aligned with the US.
Edit: can't reply
> the case that fraudsters can already target Loas and Cambodia with impunity from certain jurisdictions
Not legally or morally, but this is de facto the case.
That said, the countries most annoyed at Laos and Cambodia (eg. Thailand, Vietnam, and the auS) would much rather use regime change, or use pressure points like financial crimes prosecution which dramatically reduces your freedom and dramatically increases your risk of being used as a pawn to trade, and offer the carrot of negotiated immunity deals in return for flipping.
These kinds of organizations don't exist with impunity - they are pawns that are discarded the moment their value can no longer justify their liabilities.
Are you making the case that fraudsters can already target Loas and Cambodia with impunity from certain jurisdictions?
If you are then I would point out that being legitimate allows you to attract better talent. See America’s private military contracting sector. Yes you can go and be a mercenary abroad and operate in a legal grey area, but if you’re a Private Military Contractor working for a major US company then you won’t go to jail in the US when you come back, and you can put it on your CV.
X spends resources to kill Y. This benefits X because X doesn’t have to compete with Y anymore.
However Z also gets the benefits because they don’t have to compete with Y either. In addition Z hasn’t spent any resources to eliminate Y so Z wins. The stable equilibrium is 100% strategy Z.
Most animals will use violence in self defence, or when fighting over a specific resource. They don’t kill to remove competition.
Chimps and humans are an exception to this. Likely it’s because the coalitional nature of human and chimp violence reduces the cost of inflicting the violence to near zero, and the costs are spread across the group, so it’s worth doing.
reply