I mean isn't that most of it? If you put a snippet of code in front of me and said "there's probably a vulnerability here" I could probably spend a few hours (a much lower METR time!) and find it. It's a whole other ballgame to ask me with no context to come up with an exploit.
fun fact kropotkin's entire thesis was "yeah so this is wrong social darwinism is always motivated reasoning"
and you can see it in your thing! Environmentalism is good because it turns out burning millions of years of information as well as our only source of medicine and life sciences is not worth you feeling persecuted because you wanted to have a dirt bike that smells awful.
It's sure not cost anymore! LCOE of solar is the lowest!
AI systems far weaker than GPT-2 have had terrible effects. The result of how information and power is distributed mostly flows along the lines of reward hacking recommendation engines, powered by even weaker models.
And yet, somehow, it is beyond disagreeable but unbelievable that other people may have and may still reasonably believe that these things are too dangerous for widespread release?
Well yeah social trust is worse in autocracies, you'd imagine that corruption would be lower on the list of problems you perceive having when
1) you don't have a good press to report on them
2) you can be sent to jail basically wherever
like people in democracies do not know how good they have it!
The answer to this is just changing the law as enforcement becomes different, instead of leaning on the rule of a few people to determine what the appropriate level of enforcement is.
To do this, though, you're going to have to get rid of veto points! A bit hard in our disastrously constitutional system.
Because noncitizens can be motivated or not and / or resign and, frankly, there isn't that deep of a well of top tier AI talent. The threat of mass resignations led to OAI re-hiring sam altman, after all.
Also why would the department of war care about what citizens think specifically?
I'm sorry I read this a lot and this is kind of an insane thing to say? Classified OLC memos giving legal cover to any military action has been a fixture for the last over twenty years! Congress never abdicated power, it just, by the nature of the constitution, practically has SO much less power than the president! The president is a single person that people elect, they expect the person to be a leader, and congress will always, always play a following role so long as the president has unilateral power over the military, is directly elected, and just in general has expansive interpreting authority over laws.
You know who doesn't have as much power? The swiss head of state, so weak you can't even reliably name them! THATS what it looks like to defeat personalization, not some hand wringing hoping a system does something that it wasn't designed to do.
Then you would get zero H1B and, frankly, green card signatures. There is real risk and real dependents at stake, I understand people who can't in good conscience put that at risk.
Data centers in space make sense because its nigh impossible to build things terrestrially. NIMBYism is so out of control the largest solar array in the US in the middle of the mojave got cancelled because it would interfere with the view.
"Just change the law" ok sure we'll get right on it.
As your app scales, you're going to want to break out different parts into their own packages in order to keep compile times in check, so you're gonna be forced to go through SPM unless you use tuist or bazel.
You can't really easily use explicit types in much of idiomatic SwiftUI. The expression that the compiler is trying to solve is really complicated, I agree, but the solution to that is either changing how SwiftUI is architected or restricting how the language built on SwiftUI infers types.
Hijacking your comment because this is a common point that's made on the superiority of Swift syntax against the union syntax.
At least with |, you're attempting to model the state space. You're saying "this is one of these things." You might get the exhaustiveness wrong, but you're in the right ballpark.
As it's normally done right now, the Swift developer with five optional properties is modeling state as "maybe this, maybe that, maybe both, who knows, good luck." which is just worse than a bar. If you need to discriminate explicitly, add a `__kind` field!