Not sure why you're so deeply triggered by this; is your name on that list of top consumers that you would be personally affected?
Your comment comes across as yet another average joe randomly defending billionaires wrecking the world while we take the consequences of it. Meanwhile yet another daily disaster in nature, 100s of dolphins are dead today from record temperatures https://www.insider.com/dolphins-dead-brazil-amazon-lake-rec...
>Not sure why you're so deeply triggered by this; is your name on that list that you would be personally affected?
Your only response to someone finding this a gross overreach is to try and strawman them by suggesting I'm personally on the list?
I'm not defending billionaires any more than I'm defending an average person. Going down the road suggested (putting yearly or lifetime caps on how much CO2 you can produce) is frankly terrifying.
Tax the hell out of the fuel, charge larger landing fees, etc etc are all better options than having some sort of invisible countdown over everyone's head that for CO2 emissions.
Maybe the disconnect here is a misunderstanding of how much wealth billionaires have. We could increase fuel tax by 1000x, increase landing fees by 1000x, and this would not even begin to give billionaires pause on waste and excess flying.
The average person will be priced out by taxes and increased fees far long before any mega wealthy person will even feel it as a stiff breeze against their accounts.
Or maybe the disconnect is on the other side of the coin, let's say every billionaire on that list did zero flights next year - how much of a reduction in the US CO2 emissions does that actually result in. Does it equate in any meaningful (statistically) way or does it just make people like yourself "feel" better?
Oh I'm sorry asking you to backup your thoughts with actual data is a problem for you.
Just out of curiosity I took what seems to be the "average" of the reported number of billionaires in America as 800, and the average yearly CO2 from flying via the linked article at a high point of also say 800 tons (which is likely high but easy math). That works out to 640000 tons of CO2 from all the billionaires flying around in a year.
Another quick search on how much CO2 is produced in the USA per year came out as 5.2 billion metric tons.
That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.
> > That means these flights are accounting for 0.0123076923% of the USA's CO2 production ... or put another way it's a rounding error.
This is not about the percentage of CO2 over the total.
People don't want to be chastised by hypocrites, it's the same as a President who declares that "heavy human losses are a price to pay for victory" and then exempts his 2 sons from serving.
2 soldiers are nothing in the face of a National military mobilization for a war, but nonetheless the public opinion would rightfully be enraged as soon as the reports come out about how the President's sons are draft dodgers.
And in a country that has institutions that work as it should they are grounds for removal.
Similarly emitting 1000 tons or even just 1 ton of CO2 in the environment should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change.
>should be ground for removal from the public discourse about climate change.
But that's not what the person I was speaking with was arguing for they wanted a cap on CO2 emissions on an individual basis.
As far as being "chastised by hypocrites" how many of the billionares that were mentioned are out there "chastising" people - keeping in mind there is a difference between chastising (ie. Hey, you average citizen you're doing something wrong stop it) and bringing awareness to an issue (ie. Climate change is impacting the planet).
Someone using a massive platform (fame) to spread a message that they may not fully buy into but is for the greater good isn't a terrible thing.
Standards evolve, for sure people are not feeling positive sentiments when seeing Taylor Swift or Leonardo Di Caprio appear on TV and talking about climate change.
Same thing for the PR of mr. Gates and the constant noise put into every media by mr. Musk.
So yes whatever you want to call it the point stands. Normal people don't like it and the approval rating goes down everywhere for the public person who does it, except among the fake circles of the Oscars and the Met Gala where swarms of aspiring celebrities don't miss a chance to give a good blowie and fluffing to what is perceived to be the celebrity of the moment who appeared the most all over media to virtue signal
> Your comment comes across as yet another average joe randomly defending billionaires wrecking the world while we take the consequences of it.
This is so painfully, hilariously wrong that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You could vaporize all billionaires in the world and it wouldn’t make any detectable difference to climate change.
In the same way that vaporizing vicious dictators--subtracting how many people they personally killed by their own hands--would have no detectable difference to global murder rate.
This specific idea of limiting CO2 is being taken a bit too out of context of the broader point. Sanctions against Russia hasn't stopped the murder, any more than limiting individual CO2 consumption would stop climate change. Yet both are correct actions because they are steps in the direction of fixing larger issues.
These rules would not effect the truely rich. It would turn into a burden or inconvenience for the masses while the elite have loopholes or ways around the system.
The number of comments here of people fearing there is a ghost in the shell is shocking.
Are we really this emotional and irrational? Folks, let's all take a moment to remember that AI is nowhere near conscious. It's an illusion based in patterns that mimic humans.
Look at an average reddit thread and tell me how much original thought there is. I'm fairly convinced you can generate 95% of comments with no loss of quality.
This is the classic teenage thought of sitting in a bus / subway looking at everyone thinking they're sheep without their own thoughts or much awareness.
For everyone who we think is an NPC, there are people who think we are the NPCs. This way of thinking is boring at best, but frankly can be downright dangerous. Everyone has a rich inner world despite shallow immature judgements being made.
Exactly. Most people aren't good at communicating their thoughts or what they see in their mind's eye. These new AI programs will help the average person communicate those, so I'm exciting to see what people come up with. The average person has an amazing mind compared to other animals (as far as we know)
I'm not seeing as much fear about a ghost in the shell as much as I am job displacement, which is a real scenario that can play out regardless of an AI having consciousness.
Why is the barrier for so many "consciousness"? Why does it matter whether it's conscious or not if its pragmatic functionality builds use cases that disrupt social contracts (we soon can't trust text, audio OR video - AND we can have human-like text deployed at incredible speed and effectivity), the status quo itself (job displacement), legal statutes and charter (questioning copyright law), and even creativity/self-expression (see: Library of Babel).
When all of this is happening from an unconscious being, why do I care if it's unconscious?
AI doesn't have to be conscious to cause massive job displacement. It has to be artificially intelligent, not artificially conscious. Intelligence and consciousness are not the same.
Agree. Also as a vegetarian that often picks vegan options, breakfast cereal is an important source of B vitamins and other nutrients for me as it's all fortified
You may as well hear the story of William Kamkwamba building a wind turbine for his village and say "Not sure what's African-village specific here. People have been building wind turbines all over the world with various resources."
Assuming they meant “couldn’t you already do this with Google” I think the big difference is the context length. You can describe way more symptoms, and include a lot more data, than you ever could in a single search query. Even if Google worked properly, in its current form it’s just not capable of parsing pages of info and drawing conclusions beyond keywords.
A more apt comparison would be seeing one of the many "we rewrote our Python app in Go and improved performance by 100x" articles, and pointing out that most of the improvement comes from the rewrite and not the language.
Similarly, the real moral of the article is that doctors miss things and doing independent research, whether that's ChatGPT, Google, Bing, Yandex, or reading research papers yourself is sometimes necessary.
Interesting, the way I interpret what you're saying is "Obviously ChatGPT can make an accurate medical diagnosis" in the same way of "Obviously a Python app can be rewritten in Go"
Go has been around for quite a while now. ChatGPT relatively has not. If Go was still quite new and people were unsure of it, then your article headline actually does makes sense.
For people such as myself, it is not obvious that ChatGPT could do such things, hence the headline is useful context.
No that's absolutely not the same as python rewritten as Go. Not just that most ordinary people don't have access to arcane medical knowledge which are hidden behind paywalls or just not available to public, arriving at a diagnosis that 17 doctors missed before from just MRI notes is not a trivial thing that can be done by just "independent research". It's absolutely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
It's not bizarre at all. Tons of people are in denial of the capabilities of chatgpt. The current strategy is to position it as nothing more than an advanced search engine.
Clearly chatGPT has flaws. Clearly it's more than a search engine. And clearly there's a large contingent of people who don't want to think it's anything more than a search engine. Probably was Bizarre when the hype first started but now these people in denial are a dime a dozen, as cliche as the people they want to bring down.
> Demonstrably by this 1.0 bun release it seems safe to say it ended up being a fine decision, no?
That’s just a decision they’ve made themselves. I honestly think it’s an interesting question: can software built on a <1.0 base legitimately call itself 1.0? What if there are big underlying issues discovered within Zig?
Well sure, it can legitimately call itself anything. You are wondering if Bun’s standards for 1.0 match up with the standards for 1.0 that you have in your head, but of course only you can answer that.
If you allow me a lack of precision, that's high-end L5 pay (in a "premium plus" location), or low-end L6 pay. There are lots of L5s and L6s at Google.
Probably because there's significant overlap in the Venn diagram of people with years experience who professionally develop products that generate $millions in wealth/value, and people who would fail that interview.
Or we have worked with junior developers who have really grown and flourished under our care, who would never have gotten that chance with such insane Draconian judgements.
It's such an obvious "GOTCHA!!" setting someone up for failure.
The way it's framed is very cringy because it signals that they don't care in their interviews about determining how objectively effective a software developer is.
I don't get it. This is an extremely basic fact that most people can figure out after thinking about primes for a minute. Maybe if you ask for "what's an easy optimisation here?" This would make the candidate think more closely about invariants that their code should hold, which in itself is a very valuable skill.
Because I know enough not to write prime testing code that resemble anything like that loop to have to care about reducing its search space. If you actually want to test my knowledge about prime number, you can ask and I will tell you about using some probabilistic choice instead, and that I know fast deterministic one might exist, but I am not up to date on the state of the art.
If I have to write the loop above, I am assuming it is the Fizzbuzz equivalent of your company to show that I know how to write a while loop. I am not thinking about reducing the search space because I am writing the code semi-unconscious and frankly just want to get to the next question.
Same. Also, if I'm suspecting it's a "can they into loops" fizzbuzz test, I'd be wary of reducing the search space for the simple reason that it makes the code slightly more complex, introducing a chance to make e.g. off-by-one error, which would lose me points if the reviewer has the kind of "pedntic over irrelevant things" attitude this subthread is criticizing.
Your comment comes across as yet another average joe randomly defending billionaires wrecking the world while we take the consequences of it. Meanwhile yet another daily disaster in nature, 100s of dolphins are dead today from record temperatures https://www.insider.com/dolphins-dead-brazil-amazon-lake-rec...