There's always somebody who can be intimidated by a bully.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

Particularly striking as they started from a pretty solid premise, that mismanagement broadly is the cause. Especially citing Boeing, which was *well* documented that the changes can be traced back to acquiring McDonnel Douglas, which was ripe for the taking after being mismanaged into failure and Boeing having the genius idea that the best thing they can do with a leadership team that tanked their former company is to put them in charge of the still viable Boeing. People who wanted to scream DEI pointed to DEI initiatives that started *after* the troubled MAX program was already in the air.

I wager engineers are willing to agree, as they see their work as solid but the business mismanaging things to make good engineering infeasible.

"We (the broader company) doesn't know how to engineer, but *I* still do" I could easily imagine being the takeaway. I think most of us can relate to being part of a broader mismanaged whole.

I'd say the big thing is they took their core product as granted, and focused a great deal of their income on almost anything else, aiming/hoping for some horizontal growth instead of investing to preserve their processor market share. Intel is flush with cash and could either invest in CPUs, or, say, buy McAfee, a brand that had lost most of it's value a decade prior. Or maybe acquire some HPC products to try to build an in-house all-in-one HPC solution to compete with their partners, then decide that was a bad idea and mostly abandon that expensive effort. Or maybe buy an ethernet switch chip company, and then promptly do nothing with it. Since it worked out so swimmingly the first time, do the exact same thing with another ethernet switch chip company and again just shrug and never do anything with it. Maybe spend a boat load of money trying to make "Optane" a thing, including heavy evangelizing to try to convince people to fundamentally rework core concepts of how they work to justify the apparently awkward in-between of PCM which was never going to be as fast as SDRAM nor as cheap as NAND. Along the way spend money on all sorts of weird random projects someone had without any target customer expressing interest in the hopes they stumble upon some unexpected Model T moment in a new market segment.

Intel just assumed their position in the market was unassailable and went about trying to start *something* else because protecting their core business wouldn't deliver adequate growth (they pretty much had the market cornered). So you have a lot of big 'lottery ticket' investments with inconsistent execution on top of dubious justifications in the first place. They failed to coalesce around a common accelerator/GPU strategy leaving them critically disadvantaged compared to AMD and nVidia, their CPUs surpassed by AMD, their fabs long passed by TSMC and none of their gambles paid off, so now they are just boned. I suppose on the upside, *now* they have growth opportunity in their core competency since they ceded so much ground...

On the other hand the guys who run the excavators at large job sites will be mostly gone, as will the dump truck drivers and most of the guys who pour cement, replaced with AI-controlled robots. China already has almost completely automated open pit mines (with all-electric equipment, eliminating cost and pollution of diesel as well) and much of the refining process. Conduit is being run on green-field construction sites, pulling cable through conduit has been automated for years, and loose cable runs are coming soon. Even the fast food place you mentioned is now running with a crew of 5 rather than 10-12 like at the turn of the century. Robots are walking guard patrols and will never come in drunk, fall off the loading dock while sneaking a cigarette, or take a nap in an unused meeting room. Amazon is deploying pick-and-pack robots, robots are stocking shelves in retail stores, robots are delivering food in restaurants and to homes.

UBI will soon be a necessity, since you only have a limited number of jobs cleaning porta-potties or tearing off roofs.

That's what I just said.

I believe this is what they call "dummy bidding".

They don't care which way the issue goes, they just want there to be a way for money in on both sides, so that no side gets its way too cheaply.

You cannot bypass solving the Navier-Stokes equations with transformers. You will, of course, get some predicted flows with a black box model, and you can, if you choose, claim that prediction accuracy is close enough for 85% of the random samples from your test data, but that will not get you new propulsion physics.

There's a serious danger today that a lot of the science which relies on simulated outcomes is subtly wrong in a way that cannot be rejected outright in peer review, but will take many years to discover later.

Yeah, the energy drinks aren't going to make anyone wealthy, but it's still a payday. The retail value of a trailer full of Red Bull is about $130,000. Figure they'll get maybe 10% of that from some retailer and you clear $13,000, tax free. Low risk, because it's not drugs or guns or whatever. Not bad for maybe a couple hours work.

Here's where the summary goes wrong:

Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.

But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".

Sorry, you seem to think your link invalidates the point. It does not, but you're welcome to make up a strawman and answer it. I would dress up as a batman to keep you honest, but in my culture we don't know what that is. Thanks for playing, though.

Sometimes, social scientists who are under pressure to publish, anything, no matter what, to increase their publication count, will propose stupid experiments, that don't cost much to do, do not measure any intrinsic behaviour of humanity, and can be modified trivially to generate alternative papers. The trick is to brainstorm and try out a lot of these, until the p-value finally fits.

From a European perspective, the US also qualifies as an "enemy society", thanks to Trump being little better than a Russian sock puppet. China is a more distant threat. Putin, however, is going to keep carving off little bits of all the former SSRs until somebody actually forces him to stop. That "somebody" will not be Donald Trump.

Presumably, a super intelligence has ways of identifying the time that transcend the merely intelligent idea you've put forth?