Agreed, but still wrong
The problem isn't the lack of compute, it's the lack of science. We just don't know how to build an AGI.
66 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Apr 2023
There's two rather huge problems admitting this truth:
- The price tag! They're rapidly approaching a trillion USD and don't look like stopping there. What happens to your enthusiasm when you starting getting the real bill for your fun?
- The power bill! The data-centres are already straining the electricity grids. We thought Bitcoin was wasteful, the new constructions are going to blow everything out of the water.
All for what's not really anything more than a cranky search engine.
Agreed. I've done stints at two companies that had shift work. The first one had fixed shifts and those that liked graveyard were happy staying on graveyard. In fact they preferred not to mingling with anyone from the other two shifts. The second company had rotating shifts. Everyone hated that.
I believe he may have been talking about corporate policies. Where all company data be responsibly managed via controlled means. Laptops being locked down, having no locally accessible storage. The company IT dept sorts it all out. Dropbox would have no place in the work flow.
True. Which is why, like with public health campaigns, the goal is to get everyone on board so we all move in the right direction together.
And of course, the very purpose of the counter campaigns is to discourage as many as possible so as to make the effort useless for those that do try.
The bullshit alerts are firing today. There is super cheap motion sensors plentifully used already for, I don't know, every automatic door opener ever made. Don't need a zillion cameras and hulking "AI" processors for that!
The idea that Mozilla, or anyone other than law makers, could move the needle on privacy with ads is a complete dream. The very reason why traditional formats (newspapers/network TV) are all dying is simply because there is a competitive advantage when privacy is violated. It's not a level playing field without regulations to make it level.
are against engineering for safety. Where other engineering disciplines have had heavy regulation for many decades, if not centuries, those were for safety rather than security. All the bleating that somehow software engineering has had is easy by not being punished for insecure code is missing the fact that security is not safety, and safety is not security.
They are different terms for different purposes. Safety is the protection against unintentional harm to humans. Security is the protection against intentional harm to humans. Engineering for safety is the norm in many practices. Engineering for security is not the norm at all. If someone wants to throw another person off a bridge then there is no substantial protection against it. Just some minor safety barriers for accident reduction.
Lawyers need reminded of this distinction sometimes too.
The networks are doing it for one simple reason - It's a competitive advantage over traditional ad methods. This in turn is wiping out the competition.
What is really needed is the top to bottom banning of tracking entirely. This then puts them back on a level playing field.