They use a lot of machine learning for ads and YouTube recommendations - the TPU makes sense there and if anything shows how hard they try to keep costs down. It’s a no-brainer for them to have tried keeping Search as high-margin as possible for as long as possible.
Lots of people prefer comfort above and beyond the necessity: private cars instead of bus, takeaway instead of home cooked meals, country homes instead of small city apartments.
I agree it’s worth looking at the history, and to not repeat its mistakes, though at the same time this is a new situation, and it will continue to be new into the future, so sticking to heuristics may not serve humanity as well than being open-minded on the policy front.
The ambiguity of “advanced socialism” is problematic for any meaningful debate, so I apologise for that.
I was meaning something closer to “we have the resources and technology (in this advanced era), just not the wisdom or political will”. The actual nature of what could be provided is up for debate, but if we’re looking at mass unemployment in 2 decades’ time, perhaps it’s a conversation worth having again.
I agree, listening to the podcast I think the answer is that “yes” that is it: faith in technological progress is the axiom and the conclusion. Joined by other key concepts like compound growth, the thinking isn’t deep and the rest is execution. Treatment of the concept of ‘a-self’ in the podcast was basically just nihilistic weak sauce.
> The goal, the company said, was to avoid a race toward building dangerous AI systems fueled by competition and instead prioritize the safety of humanity.
> “You want to be there first and you want to be setting the norms,” he said. “That’s part of the reason why speed is a moral and ethical thing here.”
Clearly having either not learned or ignored the lessons from Black Mirror and 1984, which is that others will copy and emulate the progress.
The fact is that capitalism is no safe place to develop advanced capabilities. We have the capability for advanced socialism, just not the wisdom or political will.
(I’ll answer the anonymous downvote: Altman has advocated giving equity as UBI solution. It’s a well-meaning technocratic idea to distribute ownership, but it ignores human psychology and that this idea has already been attempted in practice in 1990s Russia, with unfavourable, obvious outcomes).
When performing calibrations I typically found my (accurate) blood finger prick monitor to be 1 mmol/L lower.
It’s not enough of a difference to be deadly, as the sibling comment suggests, and the clinician guidance is to always eat something if you are feeling hypo, and at or near that level.
The upshot is that I set my CGM-linked pump to target 1 mmol/L higher to compensate.
Type 1 diabetic here, they’re not close to as invasive as insulin pumps and a lot of people use those. Honestly the real problem with CGMs is they aren’t accurate enough, and they bias high - I suspect so they can pretend they eliminate hypos more than they do. (Having said that, CGMs are well worth it even with those drawbacks. They’re only invasive on the initial application.)
But I do applaud the team for working on the technology nonetheless.
There has been press hype linking Palantir with AI however:
FT: AI has given Palantir its mystique back
The Register: Former NHS AI leader joins US spy-tech firm Palantir
It’s fairer to say it probably aspires to be seen as an AI stock.
They’re financially incentivised to lobby for unregulated AI to realise “upside”.