There was another article on this recently[1], if I didn't know better I would suspect this narrative is being pushed by some PR firm. Maybe it's coming from AI companies trying to imply their models are so advanced that they need philosophers to determine if they're conscious or something?
Maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't understand what the innovation is here.
I get that they're using liquid coolant at higher than usual temperatures, but why couldn't they do that before? Most of the comparison in the article is for air cooled datacenters but what about other liquid cooled ones?
Surely in all the previous datacenters that have been designed there has been someone doing the math and determining what temperature things need to run at, how much energy it will use, how much heat it all will produce, etc.
edit: just saw this:
>Previous liquid-cooled servers were hybrid: GPUs and CPUs got cold plates, but the rest of the system stayed air-cooled, with finned heat sinks designed to shed heat into moving air. In a fully liquid-cooled server, the cooling for these components needed to be completely redesigned to use liquid.
70% of people report reducing meat consumption, but research has shown that these intentions have very little correlation with people's actual behavior.
I agree LLMs can be harmful and that the companies behind them should be held liable to some extent, for example the recent news with Google being held responsible for their AI's defamation.[1]
This is a pretty different argument though. The comment that started this thread was talking about LLMs making potentially dangerous knowledge more available to bad actors, now we're talking about LLMs giving personally harmful advice.
You asked:
>If he had the help of Claude at the time, how much more dangerous would his bumbling have been?
Probably less? Even if you removed all the guardrails from Claude it would've likely told him his reactor plan wouldn't work and that he would have a high chance of poisoning himself and the environment.
>A bunch of radioactive stuff together is basically the definition of a nuclear reactor though.
It really isn't.
A pile of radioactive waste isn't a reactor. Marie Curie's notes are famously contaminated with radioactive materials but they aren't a reactor. This is about as close as the boy scout got.
The Oklo fossil reactor is unique because it happened to form in the right circumstances to produce a fission chain reaction, which does make it a reactor. Not every uranium mine is a reactor, in fact this is the only one known.
>Of course. "tried to" being key words in the comment.
Fair enough, I misread your original comment.
The broader point stands that the limitation on creating nuclear weapons and reactors is not knowledge but materials. Even if he himself had a PhD in nuclear physics he still couldn't have built one in his backyard because he wouldn't be able to get the materials. A nuclear physicist can't build a reactor without materials anymore than a pilot can fly without an airplane.
For an example of how closely this is monitored see the Oklo fossil reactors[1]
The proportion of fissile isotopes being mined was off by a fraction of a percent, which caused the French government to launch an investigation. It turns out that millions of years ago the site had formed a natural fission reactor which depleted some of the fissile isotopes
He didn't create a nuclear reactor, this is a common misconception. It even says this in the wikipedia article.
He basically got a bunch of radioactive stuff and put it together. He wasn't anywhere close to making a nuclear reactor let alone a nuclear weapon. For a weapon you need isotopes which he didn't have access to.
>it would mean I think bats are people, just non-human ones. That's what being a person is: a subjective experiencer.
Okay, I think this is part of what I found confusing about your initial comment, since "person" is often used interchangeably with "human". But if you're using it to mean something that has a subjective experience then that's fine.
>I can't be fully sure that bats aren't persons, but I would agree that I think it's unlikely they are.
This sounds like it would put you with the "extremists" then? It's widely agreed that all mammals if not all vertebrates have some subjective experience, consciousness, sentience, or whatever you want to call it.[1][2] As you've said though we can't be fully sure.
I think he makes it pretty clear he's only talking about the second one of your two definitions
>What it is like to be a bat could be rephrased as what it would be like to experience being a bat if a person were being a bat
He says:
>[what] it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves. But that is not the question. I want to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat
The point is that bats do have a subjective experience of the world which is very different from a person's. It seems like you think only humans have this?
I had no idea there were 1500kW fast chargers, this is insanely high power for a car.
Maybe this would be useful for long haul trucks or something where they have large battery capacities and want to save as much time as they can, but it seems like way overkill for any normal person.
>The 1,500kW charging stations are significantly more powerful than Tesla’s 500kW V4 Superchargers
>it charges to 70 percent in five minutes on the new chargers.
By my math this means it would charge to 70% in 15 minutes on the 500kW charger? That's already plenty fast, my car does nowhere near 500kW and it's fine the couple of times a year I need it.
It's strange to me that this isn't the emphasis of the article.
I assume the MRL the lowest amount which could possibly cause harm? If so then why does it matter for the rest of the products where the levels are below that?
It could be for potential environmental harm, but then the fact that these are being exported at all should tell you that they're being used, you don't have to test consumer goods.
Their recommendations include this:
>2. Automatically lower all maximum residue levels (MRLs) of non-approved pesticides to the
limit of detection to prevent these substances from making their way back onto European
plates via a dangerous ‘boomerang effect
I've recently gotten into microscopy as a hobby and comparing the relative size of microbes is really interesting. There are entire animals (tardigrades for one) which can be smaller than some single celled organisms.
There are even single celled organisms which will prey upon and eat multicellular animals.
It seems to me like there's a fair amount to be concerned about, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on finance by any means so if you have some explanation of why it's not that bad I'd love to hear it.
Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically. Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth. Often the people whose money is being invested don't even have control over its allocation into these funds.
Coupled with the precarious state of the economy due to all the money already flowing through AI, changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster. It reminds me of subprime mortgages.
I was having a hard time pinning down what bothered me about this but I think you put it pretty well.
It draws an analogy between us and the skeptical aliens in the original story which feel silly to us, so the obvious implication is that we're being as silly as they were.
But it doesn't really give a reason to accept the analogy, it just asserts it.
There's a big difference between a whole civilization and a piece of software that can output text.
I'm a big fan of Star Trek but I recently rewatched this one in the context of recent AI developments and it's not as good as I remember it.
They barely touch on the issues of consciousness, Picard basically says "What if Data is conscious?" and then goes off on a tangent. The judge eventually rules in Data's favor but doesn't give much of a justification IMO.
It's still a good episode, but it doesn't add much to the conversation on consciousness. It's a hugely complicated topic which people have devoted their entire careers to.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48662452