Informix. Michael Stonebraker, to his credit, learned a lot along the way and revised his thinking about database technology and capability after believing that a single engine could be good at everything.
People have happily made their worlds more expensive for "points". In what cases are these points actually more valuable than the 1% more the consumer pays for them? Or is just the case that card users are pitted against cash and cash users are the losers?
"The Turing Option" by Harry Harrison and Marvin Minsky.
Sure, but it has to be at least noticeably less expensive per acre per year than chemicals. That gets you more organic food, but you need to replenish the soil and grow slower crops to get better nutrition. Our crops today in the USA have less nutritional value per calorie than those of 50 years ago due to selection of faster-growing/faster maturing varieties, and soil quality is yes a function of various -icides as well as other things, so somewhat more organic is better than not. I'm primarily observing that human behavior and competition is in the way of gains.
> In other words, with log utility it is optimal to take a 1 in 3 chance of ending human existence in exchange for a 2/3 chance of dramatically raising living standards by a factor of 55.
With no evidence that living standards raise by much if any. "Abundance" is macro hand-waving. Existence of AI is not in isolation from all other factors on earth as well. AI will not increase the quantity of enjoyable housing, will not lower the costs of energy, will slightly temporarily increase calorie productivity of agriculture but not nutritional productivity and will not replenish soil, will not improve environmental degradation of soil, air, water, and so on. We'll drown in more plastic than ever. People might do things to improve abundance but probably won't any more than they do today, for usual reasons of convenience and profit.
And yet humans reporting credulously on falsehoods is simply considered background noise. "Eating the dogs and cats", "we have a deal with Iran" actually causing markets to behave like it's true.
And amplified by the concerns in the post. Many people against them who aren't neighbors wouldn't get as exercised about the centers if they were other, familiar noxious entities. Oil refineries are a necessary evil in our current economy, for example. The AI stuff is an unnecessary evil, the majority of what it helps with is relatively trivial and the costs have been real already. The only way we get abundance from it is by losing enough population that there is more water, energy, arable land, minerals, housing, and other resources for the remaining humans.
A classic positioning of good/evil in action vs adherence to particular rituals and belief systems.
From the title, I was hoping for an LLM-based analysis of chronological flaws, internal contradictions, historical inaccuracies, moral cherry-picking, etc such as is easily accessed on Youtube from very educated humans. Not a critique of it, just a potential connotation of the title.
Titillating, and cringey, and par for the course. But the concerns run more like this:
> An investigation by NOTUS found that the app incorporated widgets created by a Russia-based company called Elfsight, which exposed the personal information of White House officials. Elfsight did not respond to a request for comment. At the time of this reporting, the White House said Elfsight had been made aware of this vulnerability.
Well, it also cuts the transmission to unvaccinated women (and men, when they swing that way, too). If men got it consistently, women would be at a lot less risk.
The same is roughly true for Silicon Valley investments once the herd mentality sets in. Yet it is celebrated as being the best way for commercial progress.
D's absolutely suck at messaging, and they are not that good about cohesion. Of course, being overly cohesive leads to problems as we see in today's world.