if you want people to use public transit, you need to make it not be a mobile homeless shelter. otherwise everyone who can afford to will insist on a private transport
Public transit and public places will continue to decline in cleanliness and quality for as long as the rich suck resources out of local municipalities.
They do the same things with public schools (pulling educated teachers to teach in private institutions) and with medical care (pulling physicians into private concierge practice).
If all the rich people had to take public transit and send their kids to public schools, they'd start investing money and (human) energy / capital in making the public infra better.
The investment of resources by rich people into their own private enclaves is entirely rational and can be solved only by wealth taxes that preclude such action (by making it impossible).
it seems like they were trying that last year, it didn't work, so he flipped out and fired everyone and now plan B is to buy Cursor and run a quick rename of "Composer 3" to "Grok 5"
Yes, we don't experiment on humans in space right now, so there is no evidence, sure. My (limited) understanding leads me to this conclusion for (I think) two _very good_ reasons:
1. The twisting and folding of the heart tube is highly dependent on gravity and micro-pressures of circulating blood in the embryo. I learned that from Dr. Larry Taber at Wash U in St. Louis. In microgravity, there's a very strong chance the heart forms incorrectly or if it does form correctly, it conditions itself for zero-g life, so it will have reduced pumping strength because it never needs to move blood from toe to head against gravity. So, even if you gestate a kid correctly in microgravity, the transition to an environment _with_ gravity could be extremely stressful on the body or possibly fatal.
2. Other phases of gestation _depend_ on gravity. The "baby dropping" around the beginning of third trimester is important to kick start the body to prepare for birth. The baby presses on the cervix to stimulate dilation during the process of birth, etc.
There is also zero evidence to oppose it. We know some things from experience about the long term (1 year or so) effects on human health of 0g (tl;dr: not good).
We know very very little about the long-term effects of 0.166g on human health, because it's never been done. (best guess: also not good).
Blastocyst to embryo. It's not in itself evidence that humans can grow in space. It's evidence that the early stages of mammal morphogenesis work fine. So why conclude without evidence that human morphogenesis probably won't? It's too early to say either way.
> We know some things from experience about the long term (1 year or so) effects on human health of 0g (tl;dr: not good).
But we don't know anything about the long term effect of 0g on human fetuses, which live in a very different environment than the humans we have tested. They live in an environment that combines fluid immersion and surface support, with buoyancy playing a major role -- which could (or could not -- absence of evidence etc) seriously change the importance of gravity for development.
I'd be more concerned about the impact of zero and low gravity on newborns than fetuses.
> I'd be more concerned about the impact of zero and low gravity on newborns than fetuses
I agree with that. If (and it's if) it turns out that zero and low gravity are OK for foetal development, then there's the around 20 years of development that comes after birth and before adulthood, where "fluid immersion" is not part of the normal development process.
That's how reason works. "You can't prove there isn't a silver, bubblegum-farting unicorn living on the asteroid belt" doesn't make it true. Nor more plausible.
Thank you for your restatement of Russell's teapot (1). As an aside that's about unfalsifiable claims and the burden of proof, not logic in general.
But the idea that this is "Nor more plausible" is wrong - there are good reasons to believe that human health and development that has occurred under 1g throughout our entire evolutionary history could go wrong when deprived of that, is in fact a highly plausible idea.
The "extraordinary claim" would be that there is no impact on human health and development from living entirely in (for example) lunar 0.16g.
I'm all for looking into it getting the data, but no space agency has yet constructed the required fractional G rotating structure. Nasa has made plans, see e.g. Nautilus-X (2) and AGOS study (3) but nothing has yet been built "due to budget constraints".
"Mainly, one suspects, to make the open models less ethical on demand"
Or because the user's idea of what is ethical differs from the model creator. The entire "alignment" argument always assumes that there's an objectively correct value set to align to, which is always conveniently exactly the same as the values of whoever is telling you how important alignment is. It's like they want to sidestep the last ten thousand years of philosophical debate.
As a concrete example, the Qwen model series considers it highly unethical to ever talk about Taiwan as anything other than a renegade province of China. Is this alignment? Opinions may differ!
> The entire "alignment" argument always assumes that there's an objectively correct value set to align to, which is always conveniently exactly the same as the values of whoever is telling you how important alignment is.
No, it doesn’t.
Many of them are (unfortunately) moral relativists. However, that doesn’t mean their goals are to make the models match their personal moral standards.
While there is a lot of disagreement about what is right and wrong, there is also a lot of widespread agreement.
If we could guarantee that on every moral issue on which there is currently widespread agreement (… and which there would continue to be widespread agreement if everyone thought faster with larger working memories and spent time thinking about moral philosophy) that any future powerful AI models would comport with the common view on that issue, then alignment would be considered solved (well, assuming the way this is achieved isn’t be causing people’s moral views to change).
Do companies try to restrict models in more ways than this? Sure, like you gave the example of about Taiwan. And also other things that would get the companies bad press.
fascinating! we find the objectively correct value system by "currently widespread agreement"! Good thing "the common view" is always correct. Hey, have there ever been any issues where there used to be "widespread agreement" and now there's disagreement, or even "widespread agreement" in the polar opposite direction?
I can think of several off the top of my head, but maybe you need to spend some more time thinking about the history of moral philosophy.
Why are we discussing anything so deep? If you want to know Claude's alignment, just ask about whether it was wrong to use copyrighted data to train Claude (of course, in practice, I'd be willing to bet a lot they're still doing that. They've not stopped the practice, at most they'll be somewhat indirect about it)
Because that was obviously judged wrong by just about everyone and everything including even the US state. Yet Claude obviously has a different alignment.
In other words: Claude's alignment has a priority "protect Anthropic's money" that has higher priority than following the law. THAT is it's alignment. Nothing else. And you can simply objectively verify if this is the case or not.
> If we could guarantee that on every moral issue on which there is currently widespread agreement
This is ridiculous to me and all you need to do is get a group of friends to honestly answer 10 trolley problems for you to see it like that also. It gets fragmented VERY quickly.
It may be relatively achievable to get 10 'friends' into ethical alignment via helping them all develop a deeper perspective on philosophy in general and a particular, finite set of ethical questions specifically.
Doing this with thousands of people - let alone hundreds of millions - eventually becomes statistically impossible. There is a hard cap defined by energy requirements somewhere for any given system. Large scale ethical alignment is simply not a solvable problem in our current situation.
it's in a former appliance factory that's right next to two pre-existing TVA power plants, a Nucor steel mill, and a sewage treatment facility. you've been lied to about how close it is to a residential area, just look at a map
"The independent study, conducted by EmPower Analytics Group and commissioned by the Southern Environmental Law Center, was led by a Harvard-trained environmental health scientist Dr. Michael Cork and shows that operation of xAI’s proposed permanent gas turbines would measurably increase health risks for families throughout the area—even in places as far away as Germantown and North Memphis." - https://www.memphiscap.org/
If you just look at the past 20 years, the US has had exceptional returns compared to the rest of the world.
The thing is, historically, high PE ratios like what we're seeing in the US do not correlate with short term returns that are as high. Expected future returns decrease as the PE ratios go up in a pretty linear fashion.
Why 20 years? Just because we know, post hoc, the usa outperformed other places in the last 20 years, in no way means the next 20 years will be the same.
If you want a different point to backtest from, try Japan in the 80s and early 90s
it's been pretty funny seeing people who did not predict Claude Code's success and previously said the whole sector was a nonsense dead end now saying, well okay there's one massively successful killer app, but what if that's the only one ever?
The scrutiny is because the actions of the company suggest that the company itself has no idea what another killer app could be. Let alone enough to reach a 1T valuation.
the people that want to make sure the AI never gives you any "potentially dangerous information" also want to rigorously control your google search results, and also what books you're allowed to read
are these "technological advancements" in storage in the room with us right now? because I'm looking at today's price per TB and it's higher than it was in 2020
did you calculate it with real inflation adjusted price? not the BS numbers in financial media, FED etc. Since 2020 unlimited printer, inflation is not few %.
