> This kind of discussion is suppressed on HN
Typically people wouldn't use "suppressed" to mean: "there are disconnected users of this website who are, without coordination, flagging this submission in deliberate bad faith".
Typically "suppression" would refer to a coordinated deliberate act.
So I was simply replying to the most common interpretation of the user's words.
I understood them to be saying that a deliberate (and not accidental) attempt is being made to prevent "this kind of discussion" from happening.
Certainly aspects of the Industrial Revolution were quite damaging (albeit ultimately fixed by the law, regulation and, yes, organized labor), but the data doesn't seem to indicate that quality of life or life expectancy decreased. In areas that industrialized the earliest (Britain, the US, Western Europe), life expectancy increased dramatically following the IR, and only recently has it plateaued or even fallen. Leisure activity became a real thing for most people, when before the IR it was reserved only for the highest classes. E.g. organized and even professional sports became popular after the IR.
Compared to agricultural labor, which almost everyone did before the IR, including a large class of poor peasants, industrial work was often paid more and was more stable, and the labor restrictions weren't much different than what these societies had been used to.
The problems with the IR were the edge cases, where these new machines could literally kill and maim people without a thought, something that was almost impossible in the agricultural fields. There was a new level of nuisance that arose from these industrial machines that spewed smoke and emitted stenches and were quite noisy. Further, the concentration of wealth that arose from economies of scale was a problem industrializing societies really had no idea how to tackle. I could go on. But I think the point is that in the average case, the IR was helpful on the whole.
Or unless its use to gain political power is successful and entrenches the oligarchy and cements 702 in place.
Another trick that worked for me: If there are high-quality lecture notes, download a note, set a timer for the length of the lecture, and aim to read through the entire note within the time period that it took to deliver the lecture. Being on the clock creates a little pressure that helps me focus. It's OK if I don't achieve 100% comprehension; I basically never achieve 100% comprehension during a live lecture anyways.
The only problem with these techniques is that it's easy to fall way behind if you don't discipline yourself to consume lectures at about the same rate they're being delivered. Cal Newport's book How to Become a Straight-A Student has good tips like blocking out chunks of time during your week in advance to do study specific topics or do specific assignments.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
Github, gitlab, sourceforge, etc
What frustrates me about Google is they fumbled in a lot of markets that aren't far from their established ones. Zoom ate their lunch with video chat, and now MS Teams seems to be beating GSuite. You'd think maybe YouTube -> social networking would be doable, but they botched it with G+. I also don't see anything big Google has leveraged Android for.
If we think less about the asymmetry between employers and employees, and think they are 2 parties entering into an agreement, the employee also has to contribute something to their work. They are bringing in their expertise and availability, how that is achieved is a matter of agreement. If the agreement said your availability to be in the office is up to you, then you are free to optimize on your side how to optimally achieve this.
I have seen people choose to live far away in better condition, trading for longer commute time, and vice versa. Why should it not be your responsibility? Ie if employer pay for commute time and possibly cost, then the incentive for me is to live as far away as possible.
Hire great AI/ML practitioners with strong Ethics. E.g Demis, Jeff Dean are also great practitioners with integrity and ethics.
Grift is having an AI Ethics division whose sole purpose is to kneecap advancement.
E.g Timnit and Alex Hanna
2) You are assuming that openAI, Microsoft and Google aren't cautious about their development. In fact their entire LLM releases are filled with over-cautious approach
3) Once again Hinton or Suleyman and Ilya are not the Ethics the article is talking about. They are talking about low-level grifters whose entire identity is depended ant on AI Ethics. I'm perfectly fine with Hinton, Ilya and Mustafa acting as AI ethicists.
6) LLMs are not cataclysmic. It's been 1 year since chatGPT has been released and pretty much diffused through out the world along with Midjourney and Runway. Yet, the world seems to perfectly chugging along fine (Yes, I understand long-tail risks, but they are completely overblown).
Calling LLMs cataclysmic and raising alarms is exactly the wrong approach because what you are doing is effectively numbing down the public to AI alarmism.
We have seen this play out before Climate, Donald Trump (because Mitt Romney was cataclysmic), Andrew Tate (because Jordan Petersen was cataclysmic)
I am in the Apple ecosystem but prefer them to my AirPods Pro.
It seems fair to me, and it is probably healthier for all of us the less we are inundated with news and discussion about it. Nobody will change anybody's perspective about it, and none of us can do anything positive to help the situation.
Unhappy to see things like this though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38590792
We don't know the story leading up to that, but I can trust a VC after seeing how most of them have behaved during this conflict.
Economists have discussed it, and just like with previous automation, there'll always be new jobs as human wants are unlimited (and by the time AI are able to do every job humans can do, they won't be willing to do it for free).
The old saying "don't buy the biggest house in the street" still rings true.
Austin's median home size is 1800-2000 sqft.
Unless you are looking to house a lot of people (i.e. a big extended family) a 4k sqft house is usually a bad idea from an investment perspective because, should you ever want to sell, the pool of potential buyers interested in a house that large is smaller.
That's true whether in Austin or Houston.
Fuzzing might be more useful for something like the dynamic loader, which has far more features than the kernel loader, and is far more eager to read user-supplied data.