solveit · HackerTrans

The bright side is that it should eventually be technically feasible to create much more powerful and effective guardrails around neural nets. At the end of the day, we have full access to the machine running the code, whereas we can't exactly go around sticking electrodes into everyone's brains, and even "just" constant monitoring is prohibitively expensive for most human work. The bad news is that we might be decades away from an understanding of how to create useful guardrails around AI, and AI is doing stuff now.

solveit

8 mesi fadiscuss

I get the feeling that you're winging the specific numbers because they're spectacularly incoherent.

But anyway, the United States is extremely rich and has essentially no big problems that can be solved by a small amount (say, a few billion) of money. The problems are either so big that it would take trillions to solve (supporting aging population etc), or blocked by something other than money (politics, regulations, etc). The big problems that can be solved just by throwing a few billion at them are solved quite easily by either the government or by private entities like the Gates Foundation.

solveit

8 mesi fadiscuss

Even the US median household income is "only" $83k. Looking at stuff like this + the rest of the blog I'm not convinced the author is any less out of touch than the people this post is criticizing.

solveit

5 anni fadiscuss

> FU money is literally the ability to say FU and do something anyway when someone says you can't.

I always thought FU money was enough money that you can say FU and not do something when someone says you have to. That is, enough money to retire (get fired) on a whim. Of course, even by that definition, 750k isn't FU money unless you're single in a LCOL area (or fairly close to a predictable death, I guess).

My personal criterion for FU money is 3mm. This is fairly achievable, market willing, if you have make six figures.

solveit

7 anni fadiscuss

Yeah but OP says they were only promoted once, so they're probably not on track to make L6 in six years.

solveit

7 anni fadiscuss

Sure it does, we (should) decide policy based on what is possible, not what adheres to some God-given set of moral consistency conditions. A ban on e-cigarettes is probably politically feasible, a ban on cigarettes is not.

Anyway, I still disagree with banning e-cigarettes because it seems they're so much less harmful than regular cigarettes that even if the marketing was so effective that everyone started vaping, I'm not sure the harms would outweigh the gains from smokers quitting.

solveit

7 anni fadiscuss

I'm seeing this sort of thing often these days. People absolutely insist on taking a moral stand on the flimsiest of situations. Not everything is a value judgement for Christ's sake, sometimes words just mean what they mean!

comments