That's how computer architecture always advances. There was a time when computers didn't have FPUs. There was a time when they didn't have vector units. There was a time when they didn't have GPUs. New types of processing units get added to do useful things. For a little while it's a selling point: you want a computer with the new kind of processing unit, not one without it. Then it becomes a standard part of all computers and you take it for granted. You don't ask, "Does this computer have a GPU?" anymore, because of course it does. You only ask, "What kind of GPU does it have?"

I'd say they're all trying to solve the same problem. NVIDIA added units to make neural networks faster, because they knew it was important. So did everyone else, for the same reason.

No that's exactly it when we're talking about a devise by which we can test theories and rule out hypothesis of how the universe works, a supercollider is the only way we're going to get info on things we don't know about physics. We're using it to rule out theories and hypothesis, you can't do that without one. Not to mention the huge tech and engineering culture built up around it that took years to develop.

So yes when 21 billion is less than 1% of gdp that's peanuts buddy, her argument is that "it's too expensive" compared the wars of iraq 21 billion is peanuts.

"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion."

So don't give me this shit you defending sabines bad arguments, when you consider the total cost of shit that adds no value to this planet politically or economically like the war in iraq.

So no you're still wrong, we're talking about vs all the other stuff states spend money on (like war) that are total net negatives for humanity.

Sigh you missed the point, 21 billion dollars is less than 2% of america's gdp, aka 1% of 25 trillion dollar economy is 250 billion dollars.

AKA 21 billion dollars is peanuts for a super collider. It doesn't even scratch 1% of gdp. So no sabines argument is nonsense squared.

Sabines video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Sorry the cut and paste pasted some other link.

Because the only way you can advance or rule out theories of how reality works is by experiment, I hated how Sabine suggested that we shouldn't spend money on a super collider because it won't produce any near term economic benefit, not realizing the only way to test how the universe works is to have probes that can proble the fine structure of the universe to help eliminate theories and hypothesis.

She's not getting that there is a culture of engineering that took decades to build that goes away if you shut off the money. So no not quite turtles, super colliders are the only tool we have to refine and test and gather data about how nature works at the very small.

Sabines video:

ised-isde.canada.ca

Enjoy the future where valve owns everything and you own nothing because your too stupid and irrational to understand silicon valley tech company history. Why would I listen to someone who enjoys paying money for broken software? AKA steam is malware, mmos were just pc games with the networking multiplayer ripped out and coded fraudulently.

... The public ate all the drm tech over the last 26 years since since the rise of the internet in the mid 90's, first with mmos then with steam. The entire industry can use telecom to steal software on an industrial scale from the computer illiterate masses, that means no privacy for you. If you bought windows 10 or have ever purchased anything requiring user names or login accounts your too stupid to be using computers. Everyone knew in 1997 when ultima online was released the average gamer and PC user was chimp factor five levels of stupid about basic computer technology. The last 20 years has been every software and hardware company on the planet locking everything down and using world telecom to turn our PC's into dumb clients because the average member of the public is stupid.

So if you ever bought an mmo, or steam, or windows 8/10/11, and Xbox post xbox 360, you are part of the problem.

Assholes like this are behind encrypted computing they are hacking chips and working with hardware manufacturers to turn files into property. It's been a big conspiracy over the last 20 years to kill off device ownership and hand it over to the copyright crime syndicate because the masses are stupid.

See mr chen hacking the xbox here to kill ownership of your device.

https://youtu.be/U7VwtOrwceo

"Free" shipping is now standard at all major retailers, no subscription required. The only thing Prime gets you is slightly faster "free" shipping, but only on some items. For most things I buy online, I rarely care whether it takes 2 or 5 days to come. For the rare times when I care, I can pay extra for faster shipping. It doesn't add up to anything like $140 per year.

OpenAI is a non-profit. Sort of. It's a non-profit, but it has a fully owned subsidiary that is a "capped" for-profit, with profits limited to 100 times their investments. The justification for that arrangement was that it would give them more ways to raise money, which would fund the non-profit's altruistic work to create "safe and beneficial" AI. Wikipedia explains this unusual arrangement. "The nonprofit, OpenAI, Inc., is the sole controlling shareholder of OpenAI Global LLC, which, despite being a for-profit company, retains a formal fiduciary responsibility to OpenAI, Inc.'s nonprofit charter."

What does that mean? Like a human mind in what way?

We really don't understand how the human brain works. We know how individual neurons work, and small clusters of neurons. But how do billions of neurons work together to create intelligent behavior? We have very little idea.

Until we know how the human brain works, it's hard to say how similar or dissimilar an artificial neural network is.

Altman's suggestions sound remarkably self serving. Don't tell us what to do. Don't try to stop us from doing anything. Don't try to slow us down. Just let us do whatever we want, and we'll let you come inspect our data center so we can all pretend there's some actual oversight.

And he says it will only apply to maybe five compute clusters in the world? Is he assuming technology will stop advancing? At first maybe there will only be five. A few years later there will be 50. A few years after that you'll have no idea how many there are, because any company with a decent compute budget can afford one. His suggestion only makes sense in a world where computers have stopped getting faster.

It's only perpendicular to the sun for two days each year. Unless you keep shifting the orbit every day, but then you get a satellite that literally passes over every point on Earth, so you would need to blanket the entire planet with receiving stations.

Do you have a citation for it being used before then? For what it's worth, Google Ngram Viewer shows hardly any use of the term until the late 90s, when it suddenly exploded. Earlier use of the term is largely in the context of open source intelligence, which is unrelated.

"Open source" is a synonym for "free software". It has been from the beginning and was always intended to be. Here is an article by the person who coined the term explaining how it was chosen, and that the only goal was to avoid confusion:

RMS later decided he liked his own term better, so he tried to spread confusion about it by claiming open source was based on a different philosophy from free software. It's not true. Do a point by point comparison of the official definitions of open source and free software. Every one of the essential freedoms is also part of the definition of open source.

There's so much I could say in response to this. I could point out that it would take a lot more than 1.5 C of warming before Wisconsin stops getting snow in the winter, so why do you think the presence of snow is evidence against climate change? Or I could note that the current weather at this moment in one place tells you nothing about long term climate trends, so why would you base your beliefs on it? Or I could point out that no scientists are actually predicting the end of the world from climate change, just a lot of suffering for a lot of people, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. Or I could even observe that a lot of people really are predicting the end of the world, and have been doing it continuously for 2000 years, but no matter how many times Jesus fails to appear, they just keep predicting it will happen Any Day Now. Your scorn would be better directed at the people who keep making wrong predictions, not the ones who keep making right predictions.

But I suspect that no amount of logic would have the least effect on you, because your beliefs aren't based on logic. Am I right?