As in since the U.K. shot itself in the foot more effort is being spent on an English speaking country in Europe at the expense of an English speaking country in its own.
Ehhh I wouldn’t think it’d make a significant difference on its own. London is what it is (was what it was?) because of centuries of English imperial hegemony, not just because it’s English-speaking. Berliners speak the global lingua franca virtually just as well and - with no slight intended to the Irish - their city is a much more natural fit as the new European cosmopolitan cultural Mecca.
Dublin’s rising global prominence probably has more to do with Ireland’s rather business-friendly taxation policies.
You don't build a new greenfield compute pod because you want to, you do it because it makes sense. Making sense is about cost and non-cost needs like data gravity and regulatory issues.
The cost case only works for GPU heavy workloads which this isn’t - wrong chassis, wrong network, etc.
Tofino2 is the wrong choice because even when they made that choice it would have been clear that it’s doa. Intel networking has not been a success center in, well, ever. That’s a selection that could only have been made for nerd reasons and not sensible business goals alignment or risk mitigation.
When you make an integrated solution you’d better be the best or close to the best at everything. This does not seem to be the best at anything. I will grant that it is elegant and largely nicer than the hyper converged story from other vendors but in practical terms this is the 2000s era rack scale VxBlock from Cisco or whatever Dell or HPE package today. Marginally better blade server is not a business.
They also make a big deal and have focused on things no one who actually builds data center pods cares about.
I actually hope they get bought by Dell or HPE or SuperMicro. Those companies could fix what’s wrong here and benefit a lot from the attention to detail and elegance on display.
Well, engineers are kind of the archetypal model of the "but ackshually..." guy, so I'd venture to say you're right. I used to be more bold in my pronouncements when I was younger, now I think I like to repeat stuff I've heard like "interesting, I had heard that X was a factor with this, do you know if that's true or not?" In these situations. Having some intellectual humility and actively seeking opinions of people who might be more informed goes a long way.
This also works in _so many different work environments too_! I like how you term it "intellectual humility" but I wonder if "professional intellectual humility" is more suited.
Yeah it's considerably more harmful in professional environments, imo. I forgot to mention in my initial comment that I feel like people underestimate how effective it is to drop the pretense that you already know enough about what's being discussed to learn more, and how 'disarming' it is to people to be asked instead of told.
Disarming in a sense that they will usually be inclined to react in a magnanimous way, instead of possibly adopting some other frictional communication pattern. It really just makes everything easier if you actively try to leave your ego at the door.
yes, there are so many frustrating communication archetypes I feel like there should be a compendium/dictionary of them. Unfortunately, most of them seem ego-driven, so it takes a lot typically for people to grow out of them.
I personally believe FTL is likely impossible so I think the only realistic hypothesis is if we encounter aliens, that they're von Neumann drones on the vanguard edge of a colonization wave from an alien race that's been doing it for millions of years.
If we survive for long enough as a species, either we'll meet races in this manner or we'll be the ones doing it.
For the record I still only assign a fairly low probability that this is what is happening, it's more likely that UAPs are craft from terrestrial origin.
No. You have a fair point, but not my biggest gripe. It's much more fundamental to what YAML is.
YAML allows YamlNodes as keys in a map (aka complex keys). E.g.
? [ a, b]
: "complex key, scalar value"
You asked it for YAML parser and it gave you a shitty JSON parser.
Also this is the most banal thing about YAML, something that should be obvious just browsing the examples. And I gave it test suite and link to YAML spec.
Most work in YAML is around super obscure corner cases.
Well in real terms, isn't all it takes is something that's a convincing enough forgery? Like why the turing test was considered interesting at one point. I don't think drawing a line is necessary for us to quickly become caught off guard by developments in this space.
For the record, I don't believe we're close to AGI but I'm also pretty far from knowing anything about that field.
Seems like a no lose bet no matter the odds. If you win, life goes on and you can collect a bit of money. If you lose, money becomes worthless and the surface of the earth gets transformed into a computing substrate.
I don't know. Having interacted with LLMs at different levels, they resemble a very sophisticated, alien intelligence trying to pretend to be human. It's like me pretending to be a dog; even if I were to emulate a dog perfectly, I wouldn't have the same emotions; I'd be pretending.
We have no idea what emotions, motivations, behaviors, or goals AIs have, will have, or if they'll have something as of yet unconvinced that's not emotions or motivations, but just alien.
We evolved to self-preserve and breed. Modern AIs evolve to pretend to write human text. It's not clear there is any intention to survive, reproduce, or turn the surface of the earth into a computing substrate.
There's a million different dangers -- and I suspect the real ones are ones we haven't conceived of. Whether they'll materialize or how depends on on how we evolve them, and I expect we can't predict it.
To me, much more likely than earth-as-a-computing-substrate is humans-as-brainwashed-consumers. Market forces will push for AIs to write text which draws eyeballs. Those models won't care about truth, ethics, or much of anything other than getting you addicted to reading what they write (or watching what they create). At that point, we can destroy ourselves just fine.
But even more likely is something no one has thought of.
> We have no idea what emotions, motivations, behaviors, or goals AIs have, will have, or if they'll have something as of yet unconvinced that's not emotions or motivations, but just alien.
AIs don't have emotions, motivations or goals.
They don't pretend, because pretending implies intent, they don't have intent. They do what they're created to do.
Humans are already brainwashed consumers. Welcome to marketing/advertising and late-stage capitalism. The ability of human beings to do what you're describing is much more effective than that of AI at present, ergo the "danger" has been here for decades. Smoking? Junk food? Radium water? Fast fashion? Equestrian ivermectin? Shall I continue?
The level of confidence both sides give here is not warranted. We have no idea about what internal structures emerged within LLMs. We only know outer behavior.
From a humanist / secular perspective, humans evolved to make babies. Emotions are an emergent behavior to maximize the number of babies made, and their survival. Nothing less, and nothing more.
What analogues emerge when we train machines not to survive but to complete text?
We have no idea.
There's the "ghost in the machine" crowd, the sentient machine crowd, and the mechanical machine crowd. None have presented any compelling evidence, but all speak with complete confidence in their hypotheses.
1) The first AGI we create will immediately break free of our control
2) It will either have already been given, or will find some way to take, control of physical systems
3) It will create the Singularity
4) Its goals will be to advance itself at our expense
None of these are remotely givens. Even if we grant that AGI is possible with our current level of technology (which is also not at all a given), the Singularity is nothing but science fiction. It's an interesting idea, but there's no real reason to think it's close to what an AGI's capabilities would be like in reality.
There's lots of science fiction that doesn't have A.G.I. destroying the planet.
Commander Data, Hal 9000 (a bad guy but not that bad) Asimov's droids, even the all powerful A.I. of Neuromancer has no particular ill will towards humans.
Belief in AGI hardly means you need to believe in Armageddon.
This is done mainly to strip off meta/EXIF/GPS Data, and mitigate other format violations often used to cause "trouble". Resampling/transcoding also tends to corrupt steganography utilities, thrash user hardware thumbprints, and standardize the web experience by excluding unsafe formats in favor of well-tested efficient traditional codecs.
Specifics preclude the multifaceted nature of the policy.
