Depends what country you're in. In the US we have a culture in engineering of doing what we believe is right regardless of what the manager wants. We can afford to do that because of how highly specialized our work is and how few engineers there are (this is probably changing with AI). But in other countries managers are looking for any excuse to replace you with someone who will just nod their head and do whatever they ask.
It uses https://capacitorjs.com/ and I'm super happy with this choice. I think it feels fast simply because solving simple algebra problems is very light work these days (and of course its all on device... so no waiting on the network).
Reminds me of the (infamous) eBay sellers back in the days who collected perfect ratings for a couple of years just to suddenly turn into scammers, pulling off what was known as a "long con" or "exit scam."
> That's the ground reality of government funded education.
In India perhaps.
In Commonwealth countries such as the UK, AU, CA, NZ, etc. teachers being paid but not attending doesn't go unnoticed and would be part of an award (sick leave, paid vacation time, etc).
What I'm hearing from your anecdote is that in India the government is unable to track it's own employees.
> The dilemma for bots: when tokens are bound to the connecting ip, scrapers must limit the connecting IP pool for each site they want to scrape, becoming much more obvious and easy to block, or they have to use massive amounts of compute.
You can't do that any more. Too many ISPs, especially mobile carriers, don't hand out anything resembling a fixed IP address any more. It's CGNAT and constantly changing IP addresses alllll the time now.
One can simultaneously believe AGI is possible, be only modestly sceptical that our current methods are likely to yield it in the near term and still find the religious ferocity enveloping its discussion silly.
> saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point
Straw man. Nobody argued this. The discussion is around how urgent it is to policy treat a future hypothetical.
20+ years ago, I worked in several reactor control rooms. The light quality astonished me the first time I entered: it was bright, shadowless, and flicker-free. The entire ceiling acted as a light source; the whole area was covered in fluorescent tubes, positioned beneath a grid similar to those photographers use to control light spill from softboxes. The only way to see a direct light source was to look straight up. To prevent flickering, they used three-phase mains power, connecting one-third of the lamps to each phase.
Modern office lighting is far inferior. Almost every time I look up in the office, I am met with a harsh glare piercing my eyes.
The Chinese labs incentives is to run inference for the world, because inference can run on the homegrown Chinese chips (giving them a guaranteed market for their hardware) and they have cheap plentiful power.
The US frontier labs have an incentive to do deals with large firms to act like a contract research organization, taking royalties on creations/discoveries. Alex Karp called this out in his rant ("Why charge for tokens, take a %") and he's basically right about this.
> Claims do not support themselves. The claim is unsupported by evidence and thus the burden of proof is on them or you to produce that evidence.
OK?
> Your argument that the poster needs to go read, implement, integrate, and benchmark the algorithm to to generate evidence to counter the absence of evidence for the claim is ridiculous.
The poster didn't complain that evaluating the claim was work they couldn't be arsed to do, they complained that they could not evaluate the claim because they were legally bound to accept it. Both parts of that declaration were and are factual lies.
> It would be as easy as 1-2-3 for the author to present their evidence
Nonsense. The author implemented this algorithm as an employee 20 years ago, they do not own and can not provide the original code, they would have to reimplement it from scratch (possibly from the patent if they didn't otherwise publish it, which I assume they did not since they link to the white paper but not an actual paper). They might have an edge from being more familiar with the domain, but given the poster's dismissal I'm sure they're deeply familiar with the subject.
> you are demanding the poster demonstrate the negative
But I'm not talking about luxuries like super cars that most people couldn't afford.
I'm talking about the necessities of life. Food, shelter and energy have become more expensive and under this administration's policies it's not getting any better.
Poverty rates have barely improved and under this administration desire to reduce SNAP budget heavily, what do you think this will do to child poverty rates?
I agree, a free market would work that way... Yet 'fail upwards' and zombie companies seem to be the default. Personally I don't believe that what we have in the west is a free market. I think these days, it's probably less free than the one in China. The market here is completely smothered by regulations.
The Starlink satellites burn up in the atmosphere as they end their useful life. The metals that the satellites are made up of don't vanish in the thin air up there. They burn and just hang up there. Now, whether or not this is an impending disaster is for you to decide, but that's the theory of it.
I wonder what you mean by "moving humanity forward". Just technological advancements without other considerations? In my opinion it should at least require reducing human suffering, and if ao he has done more harm than good