If we don’t solve alignment, then yeah it very well might be Terminator but really dumb and embarrassing while its happening and people deny its happening. I dont know if we are gonna have a robot apocalypse, but if we do I can guarantee its going to be incredibly fucking stupid.
Knowing how utterly ridiculous things are now and how you can't write fiction as absurd as real life, because people would say its too out there and unrealistic, I think it will be a very special kind of stupid.
What do you mean there's no such thing as the alignment problem? People like Rob Miles talk about it all the time. Corrigibility will be a problem, I guarantee it.
What makes you think Musk is technical? I’ve seen tons of interviews and podcasts. He’s not as stupid as he comes across on Twitter, but he absolutely is not an engineer and couldn’t code his way out of a paper bag. He has an above average understanding of tech, but whenever seriously pressed —- rare because the media is absolutely terrified of pressing him and losing access —- he demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the tech behind his businesses akin to an enthusiastic fan .
He comes across as a guy who really wants to seem deep and cerebral, but his takes are pretty surface level compared to other tech CEOs. He couldn’t even give a high level explanation of Twitter’s “crazy” tech stack without having a meltdown.
That’s wildly inaccurate. Musk regularly displays a much higher level of tech skills compared to most CEOs, with the exception of a few, like maybe Jensen. You may not like musk, but musks way above someone like altman in technical skills
I’m not impressed. You know who is impressive? Wozniak, you can’t tell me those guys are even remotely in the same league. Even Jobs and Gates were/are accomplished designers and programmers, Elon is a joke compared to them.
Calling Twitter a “crazy stack” is hilariously laughable, serious junior dev energy, that at the very least he should be able to describe to another dev a) whats crazy about it b) what it looks like from top to bottom without insulting people for asking.
Exactly. People here think knowing how to code is spinning up 5 k8s clusters and running an ELK stack from scratch, when in reality, it can be much less. Musk was an intermediate level coder from his time, which, mind you, was a time where terms like Agile, code hygiene, etc, were non-existent.
Most code critics of Musk today criticize his poor coding skills due to him unable to migrate his skills from that era to today. But as CEO, he doesn't need to do that. I'm sure he understands the code on a shallow level, which is fine for his role.
He didn’t even know what git was, a technology that is how old now? How cringe.
We are talking about a guy who didn’t understand how to run a python script that the doge guy sent him.
Who among us WASNT writing crappy little programs in BASIC back then, a language aimed at children and microcomputing amateurs? If he had written a 2.5d raycasting game at 12 in C++, i would be impressed.
I knew guys in the 90s in high school who were writing exploits and cracking major software. For a layperson who isn’t a dev and didn’t run in those circles, it might seem impressive for a kid, but not for any of the kids I knew. Any kid with a basic understanding of programming could copy the code from a computer magazine line by line and edit it slightly . And just because he wrote it at 12 doesn’t mean he has actual coding skills as an adult, he has even said so himself he is not a “hardcore coder”. Considering there are kids like Mike Wimmer who were taking uni level robotics courses at 12, Elon is incredibly mediocre in comparison and only a simp would believe he was some kind of prodigy.
After all, we are talking about a guy who asked his engineers to print out code to show him to prove how productive they were, and who could not explain Twitter’s craaaaazy stack without telling off an actual dev. Who the F thinks the more lines of code you write the more productive you are? How deeply embarrassing.
“ While Musk had exceled as a self-taught coder, his skills weren’t nearly as polished as those of the new hires. They took one look at Zip2’s code and began rewriting the vast majority of the software. Musk bristled at some of their changes, but the computer scientists needed just a fraction of the lines of code that Musk used to get their jobs done. They had a knack for dividing software projects into chunks that could be altered and refined whereas Musk fell into the classic self-taught coder trap of writing what developers call hairballs—big, monolithic hunks of code that could go berserk for mysterious reasons.
” from his biography
He’s as technical as a middle manager with an MBA at a tech company might be, but barely impressive otherwise. Compare that to someone like Zuckerberg, who I cannot stand, it’s laughable in comparison. He doesn’t have any advanced degrees and hasn’t designed anything without help from actual, world class engineers and devs. No doubt he knows PR and hires really talented people. He went to school for business, and his physics degree is total BS, also you realize that official biographies are sanctioned by the subject and are made to paint him as an adult, his business acumen, etc in the best possible light?
Check out Curitiba. It’s a beautiful clean city with very low crime and great public transportation. It’s more like Mountain View or Ann Arbor than Chicago or New Orleans. Compared to a city like Memphis or St Louis, it’s relatively utopian. It’s a .856 on the Human Development Index, which puts many US cities to shame.
Mexico has some of the most arable land on the planet too. They are going to become a serious economic superpower by the end of the century, esp if they sort out their cartel problem.
What happens when all the fake diffusion model generated csam that is flooding the darker areas of the clearnet gets inevitably trained, setting aside the notion of model collapse?
I don’t see this issue going away anytime soon, especially since all that fake csam is still legal and basically unstoppable.
It might not protect its occupants, if all that force gets thrown at the driver instead of the front end of the car. Crumple zones soften impacts on occupants, at the expense of destroying the car.
The cybertruck is unique in that it does not crumple like modern cars do, due to its stainless steel construction. Making cars into tanks is actually pretty easy, and back in the 50s cars were built like that. But people in collisions often died in them because of physics. It’s like the difference between running into a wall of concrete at 30 mph vs a wall of cushion. The point shouldn’t be “preserve the car, break the human,” it should be the opposite. Elon dgaf,
this is his baby.
More like running into a wall of concrete while holding a piece of concrete in front of you vs. holding a pillow.
It reminded me of a video from China, in which a bike helmet merchant (?) proudly displays how his helmet can withstand blows from a sledgehammer, while the other helmets crumple. Like, bro, it supposed to crumple.
Helmets are absolutely not meant to crumple. It's not only blunt impact a helmet protects you from. Its also the penetration of your skull by pointy hard objects.
"Helmets are made with an inner EPS (expanded polystyrene foam) shell and an outer shell to protect the EPS. The density and the thickness of the EPS is designed to cushion or crush on impact to help prevent head injuries. Some manufacturers even offer different densities to offer better protection. The outer shell can be made of plastics or fiber materials. Some of the plastics offer very good protection from penetration as in Lexan (bullet-resistant glass) but will not crush on impact, so the outer shell will look undamaged but the inner EPS will be crushed."
Looks like a bunch of people who don’t have any information speculating about something which they have no prior experience with (new body construction style) and reporter’s reporting it as some how news worthy to get a sensational article.
Every Tesla made to date has been safer than the last and they are all rated as safer than any other car you can buy. There is no reason to believe they would abandon that world class safety goal with this product. I would be surprised if at minimum this didn’t turn out to be the highest rated vehicle in its class for safety when the official crash tests are published.
> The cybertruck is unique in that it does not crumple like modern cars do, due to its stainless steel construction.
This is simply not true, and I do not understand why people repeat it constantly.
Cybertruck has an exceptionally strong skin, but that's because unlike in other modern cars, the skin is structural. In other cars, there's a frame below and the skin is basically just there to shield things from the rain. In cybertruck, the outer shell is the main structure. In crash tests, you can see that cybertruck clearly has a crumple zone up front, and the entire structure is not stiffer than other trucks in a way that harms the passenger in a crash.
No it’s not. The Cybertruck has a structure just like every other car on the road. The skin might be adding rigidity, like other cars, and might be stressed, but the skin is not the main structure.
There are photos of the structural components all of the net.
I don't know exactly how to interpret this video, but it seems the Cybertruck decelerates the passenger over about the same time and distance as electric F150:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLKor7Aven4
Cars in the 70's and early 80's all had giant motors in them, and double barrel carbs just to have enough juice to haul all that metal. They were definitely tanks compared to pretty much any car that came thereafter.
Hrm. So if you take the Cadillac Series 70 (which would have been seen in its lifetime as a very large car; they tended to be used as head-of-state limos and that sort of thing), it was about 2 tonnes for most of its lifetime and peaked at about 2.5 tonnes. More normal full-size sedans were well under 2 tonnes. An F150 is 2.1 tonnes for the non-electric version. A cybertruck is 3 tonnes.
Cars definitely did get smaller in the 80s, but they’ve been getting bigger again for a while. 70s cars did indeed have bigger engines, but they weren’t very efficient engines.
This author agrees with the possibility of that and so do I, which is why I'm such a big fan of localism (as opposed to further industrialization – of food even further removed from the human experience)
I read somewhere that even a single small nuclear exchange between countries across the planet from us would cause a Nuclear Winter, which would kill much of the flora and fauna on Earth.
No, it wouldn't. Nuclear winter from a small-scale exchange was a simulation result many decades ago, to be disproven only a few years later by more advanced simulations and observation results from volcanoes, forest and oil fires. Larger exchanges will have a noticable effect, but how large is up for debate.
This is sensationalist nonsense, as evidenced by "just 100 warheads" without giving any yield or burst height. And if you read the Wikipedia article I've given you, the evidence points to the effects of any exchange in the 100MT range (which is far more than one would expect from e.g. India vs. China or UK vs. France) will be noticable, but far from catastrophic. At worst, it will cancel out global warming for a year or two.
Kyle Hill is a sensationalist? Richard Wolfson and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress are sensationalists? That is an accusation I have never ever heard sent Kyle’s way. Did you actually watch the video or read the article in the MIT press? Why should I believe you and not the authors at MIT?
