In the middle of the presentation, Elon mentioned that people were asking for a Pickup truck so they built a smaller version of a pickup truck. The one you linked to is that. They aren't taking orders for it.
> but has access to things I don't even have in a state school by virtue of being a sharp high schooler in Palo Alto, much less when I was in high school.
and then you go on to say
> I more mean the hardware access part - at 15 my parents would have never given me their debit card to spend hundreds of dollars on GCP GPUs - good luck training GANs on a laptop CPU!
That has literally nothing to do with location as you seem to allude to in the earlier post. It has nothing to do with the spoils of an economy being distributed unequally. Maybe if the hardware was only accessible in certain parts of the country, sure your point makes sense. But anybody with money could've bought it.
So your post now reads as "I'm going to blame me not achieving as much as Kevin on my parents for not spending money on me when I was young."
That article was encouraging, if anything. It shows exactly how available educational resources to the field of AI have become that a 15-year old can have access to them and make significant progress. it shows if you take initiative, you can actually go ahead and get things done.
Do you think speculation on things that are an inferential step[1](or a couple of steps) away from things you currently know could be a gauge of a person's innate intelligence?
Intelligence is required to make inferences. Assuming a common starting ground, a person who could make the most logical inferences from it to explain a result would suggest that he's smarter. I do not claim to say a person who makes 10 good points is less smart than someone who makes 11 good points. But he surely you can agree that a person who is able to make 0 inferences is likelier to be less intelligent than someone who makes a hundred.
I think it's the author's fault for switching between probabilities and odds and the readers for not recognizing the switch.
"Thus A’s chance of being condemned remains twice that of being pardoned."
When he says this, he is talking of odds of 2:1 and therefore, the probability of not being condemned is 1/1+2 = 1/3
Also when he says "Because, unlike in Monty Hall, the intuitive judgment is the correct one in Mosteller’s puzzle." He means the intuitive judgment that 1/2 is incorrect.
I was extremely confused the first 2-3 times I read it and kept trying to understand the author's viewpoint because everything other than these two statement seemed to make sense. At least I wasn't the only one.
I'm not sure how I would feel about the absence of steering wheels and pedals within their cars.
Tesla's auto-pilot can be over-ridden due to the presence of the steering wheels and the pedals. But in a car that has none, you're not in control. And that, is scary no matter how you look at it.