Ah, I see you have discovered blogs! They're a cool form of writing from like ~20 years ago which are still pretty great. Good thing they show up on this website, it'd be rather dull with only newspapers and journal articles doncha think?
That is what a blog post is. Someone documenting what they think about a topic.
It's not the case that every form of writing has to be an academic research paper. Sometimes people just think things, and say them – and they may be wrong, or they may be right. And they sometime have some ideas that might change how you think about an issue as a result.
he’s not a “random internet person”, he created Redis. Despite that, I don’t know how authoritative of a figure he is with respect to AI research. He’s definitely a prolific programmer though.
There are plenty of Nobel laureates who well, do rest on their laurels and dive deep into pseudoscience after that.
Accomplishment in one field does not make one an expert, nor even particularly worth listening to, in any other. Certainly it doesn't remove the burden of proof or necessity to make an actual argument based on more then simply insisting something is true.
Sure but quite a few claims in the article are about AI research. He does not have any qualifications there. If the focus was more on usefulness, that would be a different discussion and then his experience does add weight.
> woah buddy this persons opinion isn’t worth anything more than a random homeless person off the street. they’re not an expert in this field
Is there a term for this kind of pedantry? Obviously we can put more weight behind the words a person says if they’ve proven themselves trustworthy in prior areas - and we should! We want all people to speak and let the best idea win. If we fallback to only expert opinions are allowed that’s asking to get exploited. And it’s also important to know if antirez feels comfortable spouting nonsense.
This is like a basic cornerstone of a functioning society. Though, I realize this “no man is innately better than another, evaluate on merit” is mostly a western concept which might be some of my confusion.
Evaluate on merit indeed and that is not what is happening. The parent I replied to used an authoritative argument that is not based on (relevant) merit.
Credentialism isn't a fix for the problem you've outlined. If anything, over-reliance on credentials bolsters and lends credence to crazy claims. The media hyper-fixates on it and amplifies it.
We've got Avi Loeb on mainstream podcasts and TV spouting baseless alien nonsense. He's a preeminent in his field, after all.
Focus on what you understand. If you don't understand, learn more.
Exactly. Looks like everybody's complaining that Siri isn't a better Ask Jeeves, when that's not the design goal. What people expect is an LLM that has full access to the phone. Nobody's even remotely close to shipping that.
My Siri-initiated timers are always done with my phone, probably 50 or more each week (work stuff). The only time I get a failure is when I release the side button too quickly. I've made certain the spoken feedback is enabled to reduce the risk of me making that mistake. (Settings > Siri > Siri Responses > Prefer Spoken Responses)
As for, "What time is it?"... Try activating Siri and only saying, "Time."
I suspect that's the main difference; if you're trying to use hands-free voice activation via "hey Siri" you get a much different experience than if you can touch the watch/phone to trigger Siri first.
And thinking back over it, more than half the failures are complete - e.g., it likely never activated at all. Very few are "it set a timer, but for the wrong time".
Good chance that's what captures our different Siri experiences. The few times I've done it spoken was always with AirPods and I always waited for the Siri reply (been a while; is it, "Uh-huh"?) after I said, "Hey, Siri." But my experience activating Siri with speech is so minimal as to be untrustworthy of anything broader.
Where does it say anything about a hobby? The author is an entrepreneur. They're complaining that they're no longer enjoying a part of their job they used to enjoy, and your contribution is "it's a job, not a hobby, if you don't like it then boo hoo".
It would be great to see some justice for the enormous harm done, same for ICE, but if only the collaborators get punished then it's bittersweet at best.
Its clearly unfair if only the little fish get punished while the big fish don't.
OTOH, in practical terms, you can't have big fish without little fish supporting them, so if you drive up the perceived cost of being a little fish, you make it harder for future would-be big fish even without the (obviously preferable) direct accountability for them, so its better than nothing.
(EDIT: originally had some both incorrect and unnecessarily indirect "former/latter" references, replaced with more direct language.)
I mean, I think the point is that they were betting on being able to do crimes because Musk was in with minihands and would just get them pardoned, but now that the Musk/minihands romance has ended acrimoniously, they are exposed.
Politico quote in the article:
> “a senior DOGE figure named Donald Park tried to reassure his colleagues that they were still ‘brothers in arms’ and that Musk would continue to protect them.That led to another protesting and advising, “Guys, seriously get your own lawyer if you need it. Elon’s great, but you need to watch your own back.”
So the only AI products that work is a chat bot you can talk to, or a chat bot that can perform tasks for you. Next thing you'll tell me is that the only businesses that work are ones where you can ask somebody to do something for you in exchange for money.
Realistically there are only four types of businesses writ large: tourism, food service, railroads, and sales. People building AI-based products should focus on those verticals.
- Expending energy to convince the folks generating energy to give you money for activating their neurons (food service, entertainment, tourism, transportation, sales).
Any other fun ways to compartmentalize an economy?
The best kind of businesses are the ones I don’t have to ask; they’ve already built a better product than what I would have asked for. That’s kinda the point the OP is making about chat vs a [good] dedicated interface.
Sounds like the optimism rhetoric of Steven Pinker. I suggest you read up on the numerous criticisms of his work. Most of the optimism is based on a ridiculously low global poverty line conjured out of thin air, and other nonsense like GDP.
What you're saying is nonsense. I don't even know who Steven Pinker is. Poverty two hundred years ago was way worse than poverty today in most of the world -- this is a self-evident fact to anyone with even a passing knowledge of history. No running water, no water mains, no sewers -- these things meant death from cholera and other diseases for many children, and that's just for starters.
Odd how you counter claims as fictional with zero evidence just speculation. I realize this is a discussion forum and not a policy office but I pisses me off when feelings is met with feelings and not explanation or examples. Now’s your chance to really prove your point.
That we're all less poor today that our ancestors 200 years ago is absolutely, totally self-evident. No additional evidence needed. Indeed, the inverse claim would require evidence, and extraordinary evidence at that.
reply