I think this is a great explanation. To add to it, I believe there is something durability too. My basic Jabra wireless earbuds from 2020 are just now getting faulty (just battery stuff). In a similar time period from 2010 and 2015 I went through at least 6 pairs of wired headphones or earbuds, the jacks would fail or the wires would just stop working.
I'm a little confused about the value of scanning rare books since this story came out. I have a small collection of "rare" books and they're not really bounties of information, at least not modern information. I know novel training corpus is important but the information in rare non-fiction books is commonplace or out-dated. And the information in old rare fiction-books are originals for which reprints exist or just uninteresting stories that aren't really worth anyone's time except collectors'.
I think from the manufacturer's perspective there is some misplaced idea that automation via an app somehow makes work easier. For household chores there are so many manual steps that an app doesn't actually make the process any easier, it complicates it. You have this dependency on a phone that you're relying on whereas before it was just some simple button presses. It's like having to call your mechanic every time you wanted to start the car.
> As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a superintelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court -- even if they were wrong on the merits. That would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a superintelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills and resources in litigation.
This would only be true in a vacuum. Ignoring several leaps of progress where it would suddenly be allowed for an AI to represent one in court (imagine the size of the context window) and you could also call it from prison. That is not what is imbalanced about the US court system. Whoever has more money can drown someone in court filings and court fees and then drop their case financially ruining someone.
It's also funny how the interest of "AI for everyone" only extends to the national interest but I guess he's got to make sure he stays in good graces with the current administration.
I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg in the least, but one area a super intelligent lawyer would be fine at is being drowned in court filings and paperwork
The bigger problem with his argument IMO is that even with open models, it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning. They run the larger model (or collection of models), they can process more tokens through them in the same amount of time etc
I think there's a point of diminishing returns here. A more competent lawyer can only do so much if you're wrong on the merits, assuming your opponent also has a decently competent lawyer.
> it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning.
Is it? Legal is rarely a genuine war of attrition and delays are the norm. AI is years/decades away from not needing humans in the loop verifying output, legal more than most. Correctness is more important than speed. Main skill is doc search but most cases easily fit in modern contexts.
So I don't think legal in particular needs the fastest/bestest compute.
Naively, you'd think the judicial systems would invoke "judgement" on the underlying purpose of dumping content in the form of filings, paperwork, etc...
I think that's what's ringing to me about the whole piece. There is a large assumption of equity. There is this section header:
> Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools.
"access" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, yes everyone has access to the US healthcare system. Is it affordable for everyone? Not even close, but politicians will always phrase it that way as a non-agreement to proposals of universal healthcare.
This is the only valid future for tech like this IMO.
Should any kind of "superintelligence" exist, it must be a public good, available to all. Not controlled by a small handful of oligarchs and profit seeking entities.
Only in a world were AI companies can subsidize AI usage indefinitely. In reality AI is not cheap and larger & more potent model it's usage costs is more expensive
I think his hope is that a either a fully automated superintelligent AI lawyer or something close that won't be as costly to guide would be infinitely more affordable than the current human lawyers.
Throwback to a brief moment when everyone wanted to support IFTTT. If I remember, it ran out of steam because it takes away eyeballs from the actual application (social networks in-particular). The use cases are also rather niche.
It never ceases to amaze me how Wright's style was so ahead of the times. A lot of people immediately think the houses are mid-50's but they're in fact 20 to 30 years earlier! If you happen to be driving through somewhere near one of the houses that are under conservancy[1] they are well worth a stop.
It's really amusing when you tour something like Casa Loma[0] in Toronto (a gothic revival house) and then compare it to the Darwin Martin house[1] in Buffalo, which was built basically 10 years before. I can't imagine visiting a FLW house in the early 1900s and then building a super kitschy castle.
Money pit indeed! At Graycliff, the one he designed before Falling Water, there are no gutters or downspouts. The tour guide told us that Wright didn’t want them disrupting the horizontal lines of the house. The roof is cedar shake and there’s some wonderful moulding just below the roofline that gutters would normally protect. It must be astronomic to maintain it.
There's something similar in cinema. For example, I was watching Terrance Malick's Badlands for the first time a couple of years ago and I could swear it felt like a film from the 90s or maybe early 2000s. But it was from 1973.
I think it would be hard not just because of the amount of variables you have to model for but mainly it just might not be fun--or the fun would be very niche. In "Oxygen Not Included", maybe the most Biosphere 2-like game, your colony quickly collapses if you welcome too many duplicants (people). If you do manage to balance that there are dozens of other ways for the colony to suddenly collapse but then it can be difficult to narrow down what decision(s) lead to it.
One would make a long education video to hold eyeballs longer that can lead to more ad revenue (if that's your goal and your video is sufficiently entertaining).
I've commented about this before [1] but a lot of my simple searches lead to monstrous walls of text with tangential information about the query. The answer is buried well past a simple ctrl-F on the page. It definitely varies for domain though.
This was as good read and articulates many of the "what about this" sort of questions I've been having around the news. This clip (https://youtu.be/smemFVe0l5E?t=5418) of Tucker Carlson interviewing Senator Ted Cruz from nine-months ago popped in my head reading this. Invading Iran has been some US conservative dream for decades and now that all the people who have been telling them it's a bad idea are gone they're pushing ahead, consequences, history, and the rest of the world be damned.
I think you're reading too much into that. Evangelical Dispensationalism is what is the driving force behind the particular brand of Neo-conservatism that Ted Cruz espouses.
