> There needs to be a business model based on selling the hardware and software, not the data the hardware collects. An architecture where the company that makes the device literally cannot access the data it processes, because there is no connection to access it through.
Genuine Q: Is this business model still feasible? Its hard to imagine anyone other than apple sustaining a business off of hardware; they have the power to spit out full hardware refreshes every year. How do you keep a team of devs alive on the seemingly one-and-done cash influx of first-time-buyers?
I’ve heard something similar: “there are people who enjoy the process, and people who enjoy the outcome”. I think this saying comes moreso from artistic circles.
I’ve always considered myself a “process” person, I would even get hung-up on certain projects because I enjoyed crafting them so much.
LLM’s have taken a bit of that “process” enjoyment from me, but I think have also forced some more “outcome” thinking into my head, which I’m taking as a positive.
I preordered it and read it with the expectation of getting great sci-fi about kraken and got something else entirely. The focus is on many things, but not on sci-fi and kraken, so it is one of the weaker books in this area, sadly. I finished it, but it was a slog.
I’ve learned that being brutally honest with myself and others regarding what I’m feeling and why has been super helpful.
It _does_ run the risk of sounding childish, but thus far I’ve found the open vulnerability more rewarding than punishing.
Identifying when I’m irritable, I’ll say “I’m grumpy, I’m gonna suck to be around, sorry”. Or when the real reason why I don’t want to do something is just because “I’m feeling shy”, etc.
Its hard to break the whole “men should be stoic” expectation but I’ve found people are remarkably understanding when you’re honest about why you’re feeling what you’re feeling.
It is very telling that the only vocabulary that many people (especially men) have to talk about their feelings is childish. As children, parents or other caregivers demand that we express ourselves but they also set the constraints for what valid expression is. Those constraints might be something as simple yet ultimately toxic as, "I care about how you feel, unless it makes my life more complicated, in which case shut up." Or my favorite (for personal reasons), "Tell me how you feel but if you say anything other than that you're content I'll panic and start flailing."
Kids learn soon enough what the real boundaries of their emotional life are. As a little boy, I was told that it was weak to cry if I lost a Karate match but as long as I lied and said it was because I got punched really hard, it was OK. I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is of this kind of socially engineered lack of self-awareness, but it doesn't seem to be working. At least not for me.
>I was told that it was weak to cry if I lost a Karate match but as long as I lied and said it was because I got punched really hard, it was OK. I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is of this kind of socially engineered lack of self-awareness
Learning contains much failure, and being able to better control your own emotional state in the presence of these many every-day failures makes further progress faster, easier, and more pleasant for everyone?
I think learning not to cry after every failure is an important life lesson... if crying were an impediment to success. There are many great athletes that are criers. I don't think the lesson they had to learn was not to feel bad when they lost.
Meanwhile, what did I do? I learned to stop crying by quitting Karate. I didn't actually learn to process my feelings. I just learned how to either repress them, avoid them, or lie about them.
That's not control, because all of that was accomplished subconsciously. Control relies on self-awareness. And repression isn't pleasant, certainly not in the long run.
I'm not trying to get all touchy-feely here. I think self-awareness about one's emotional state is a vital survival strategy.
I don't know, I'm not a psychologist. I just know that, from my own experience, there's a spectrum of coping mechanisms I've got when it comes to negative emotions and the ones that work the best tend to be more holistic, including physiological stuff like deep breathing, talking with a close friend, etc.
That isn't to say that some negative emotions are better ignored, but I have a pretty strong inclination to avoidance over confrontation, and it's hard to know if I'm ignoring something that isn't worth my time or unable to confront something that's going to fester.
I think it's ultimately all about efficacy. I've interacted with a lot of people who believe themselves to be totally regulated and are actually seething with resentment. Some of those people are in my family. I know I don't want to live like that. I'd like to think I've got a better model, but only time will tell.
I guess I just find the whole human emotional landscape to be extremely complex and nuanced, and most of the people who I meet who believe that all negative emotions can be regulated away are just pathologically unselfaware. If the alternative is navel gazing, I'll take it.
I'm a mature woman, older than most of my colleagues. And I do this. I have reached an age where I don't care if it sounds childish. If I'm grumpy, I say so. It has nothing to do (usually) with my colleagues, and I like them to know that if I seem snippy, it's me, not them. Sure we can all try to not be mean or rude or whatever, but everyone is human. My teammates are encouraged to also just be real people - if you're grumpy or tired or whatever, just say so.
I have to say that our team is amazing and all get on well together, so likely this vulnerability is easier on us because of that. The men on my team are just as quick to share their feelings too. It's really quite nice.
Neither do you? None of us do, in fact I’d imagine the people trying for AGI right now would have a better guess than you or I.
> there would be an immediate and total power vacuum caused by the advancements. these advancements would be so huge that it would change the geopolitical equation beyond recognition.
This sounds like you’re assuming someone will flip a switch one day and the most powerful mind in history will be let loose. I’m not sure AGI will advance that fast. We might have alot of incredibly “stupid” iterations of AGIs first, for many years before a clever one rolls around.
> this is intrinsic and unavoidable. it cannot be disproved or denied.
Were all just making assumptions here, I don’t think yours get to be called “intrinsic and unavoidable”.
I understand the concerns here, but if you’re willing to claim the end of the world, I would suggest basing your claims on something, or atleast making your assumptions explicit. E.g. “assuming we achieve AGI, and its equipped to rapidly become more powerful/intelligent than the whole of the human population…)
you can predict the behavior of complex systems axiomatically. my predictions are very general because they are axiomatic. the most important axiom in play is that natural selection will guide the development and behaviour of the creatures of the singularity. there may be points of friction that cause small deviations from this path, such as the total effort of all humans post-pandoras-box, but the ultimate shape of things is inevitable. these are assumptions in name only.
there are many possibilities so the idea that we get an outcome that is good for us is unlikely. its just basic probability. i think people get hung up on this because there isnt an example of it to reference in history.
of course AGI will immediately rocket upward. the only way it wouldnt is if it were created in total secrecy and held in perfect captivity forever. laughable. all that is needed is for word to get out that AGI has been created and it would be re-created the next day somewhere else. and one iteration of it would rocket upward. AGI, once created, is intrinsically unstable.
the burden of evidence and proof is on you, not me. we know what things will be like without AGI. it is only right for the people who advocate for the creation of sentient machines to produce evidence that they will not open the doors to a living nightmare. the same thing should have been done with nuclear weapons. it really makes me scratch my head when people demand evidence from me as if i were the one encroaching. you are right, people are only making assumptions when they talk about the singularity. and the idea that we will not bitterly regret the singularity is the most tenuous assumption of all. until they show up with something more substantive i will be firmly against the creation of AGI.
Genuine Q: Is this business model still feasible? Its hard to imagine anyone other than apple sustaining a business off of hardware; they have the power to spit out full hardware refreshes every year. How do you keep a team of devs alive on the seemingly one-and-done cash influx of first-time-buyers?
reply