If LLMs are capable of writing code and code is what they are created with, what's keeping LLMs right now from entering into a loop where they are themselves creating new AI with more advanced concepts than we've ever known?
> it seems there is conclusive evidence (LLMs) that quantum explanations are not necessary to explain at the very least linguistic intelligence as advanced linguistic intelligence is possible in a purely classical computing domain
Any reference explaining this? It isn't clear to me that LLMs have proven advanced linguistic intelligence
As with most things in life, there's an appropriate balance somewhere. People tend to say anger = bad because we have mostly experienced inappropriate anger on one extreme and have found that it isn't healthy for you.
What is the moat for AI? Right now, it's enormously expensive to produce an LLM but doesn't AI produce results which, in the long run, will make it easier and easier for any company to produce the same?
Not a very friendly comment and I didn't think electric vehicles needed oil.
Vehicles are doing more and more processing - the work of servers. Distributing moving servers around the world to process data at that specific location is useful and becoming more and more so.
Can you think of any applications for having servers primarily used for processing data on location that are distributed around the world in locations that normally can't have buildings sitting there or that might benefit from moving with traffic?
Good points to think about. One I consider is that traditions and family roots are often good for people to feel connected and find meaning although traditions should be questioned from time to time.
I think having family members of varying ages alive at the same time does help people feel connected, safe, and confident in having meaning and purpose. (Not that people can't have those things otherwise, it's just without that support)
Yeah. The easier money is to get, the more willing people are to pay higher prices.
There might be a 0 to 1 issue (people stuck at 0 need some kind of traction) that is at least improved in a practical sense with a small UBI although we still need productivity to continue increasing in order to drive prices down
Maybe building more doesn't get your out of the cycle. Maybe it helps. Personally, I've only visited Seattle once and don't have any desire to return to live or visit. I would likely be happy taking up space in the MidWest that the rich young professionals are leaving behind.
I only think that there's usually a balance to things that sometimes require a lot of time to pass in order to correct.
Anyway, I appreciate all of your responses and your perspective.
No, I don't think I'm suggesting that Seattle build a house for everyone in the US + immigrate; only maybe that there is some curve where building more doesn't result in increased demand.
I don't see why some would have more of a right than others to live in a place on a baseline level and at the same time I don't think it would be right to force people out of their homes just to make it fair to everyone to have a chance to live there.
If a place is desirable, the people who were already there are more likely going to be the ones who have been contributing towards making it a desirable place to live than ones who were not already there.
That demand can't go to infinity, though, right? I would think the new arrivals would be stimulating factor to build more houses, on the economy, produce new tax dollars for roads, etc.