There was an article this week in Zerohedge referencing this. The narrative is look how uncontrolled our AI is but not quite so uncontrolled that we should be shut down. Rather, we need government regulation to select accepted models (ours) and regulate out of business all of those pesky Chinese and open source models -- because AI is dangerous. This is a play for crony capitalism before their IPO's, nothing more.

The truth is that LLM technology is not unique, easily copied, and lacks a long term road to high profitability. That is why everyone and their dog makes a model. The AI execs know this and that is why they are all on the regulate / control AI bandwagon.

They are impressive but most miss a vital point. Machine Learning, AI included, does a good job of interpolation but not extrapolation. That is why LLM's will not be more impactful than what they currently are. They replicate but do not go beyond the average of the masses. A corollary is that society in general is extrapolating the capabilities of AI with headlines like the original post. In the end, who controls powerplug either physically or legislatively.

The vision was one of freedom. This is something that many other countries, including those in Europe lack. The problem is that we were betrayed by our politicians too, while we were not looking. I am educated well beyond college, but I would rather be a barbarian than a slave.

Turning around by lowering regulation and increasing the incentive to produce, through lower tax rates. It is generally the right path when you are facing inflation, as inflation is more dollars seeking fewer goods. MV=PQ. The problem is that taxes should ultimately have been raised on the corporations. However, with globalization, they just shifted their headquarters and tax status. elsewhere.

It goes beyond Presidential Admins and rests on the shoulders of a government bought off by special interests. American standard of living started a downward trajectory when we expanded global trade in the 1960's. Deficit spending is part of the issue. Shipping technology and industries offshore is another. Corporate governance that can skip tax regions is a big factor too. Now, fewer individuals outside the US demand our currency as we don't produce what the world wants, thus we have lower buying power and perceived inflation. We are in debt and the corporations should be the ones to be taxed, but they can just shift the profit making entity overseas avoiding any taxes, so that is not a solution either. Many here don't like the current admin, but Trump, knowing or not, is on the right goal of making us self-sufficient -- not relying on production or employees from elsewhere. It is a hard ship to turn around though.

I doubt the Uyghurs and the Tibetans would agree with you.

The key is that humanity as to come first. Too much of policy is concerned with productivity at the expense of the person. Globalization is one example of this. What good are cheap, imported TV's if they displace a skilled worker in a factory and put him in a job that says "do you want fries with that". Science also has to serve humanity; it is not an institution above society. AI has problems as it seeks to replace humanity and the human capacity of reason. For this reason, people instinctively do not like it.

To your point, the key is the family, our purpose, our job, our knowledge. Freedom is essential in cultivating these, and government has to serve us, not the other way around.

If you think beyond the next earning cycle, AI will, in the long run, bring lower industrial productivity as it is disincentivizing learning. As some have pointed out, where do the entry level jobs come from? Why would students study a knowledge-subject if it can be done by an AI. The current AI's will replicate and automate our current knowledge state and that is about it. Machine Learning as a rule does well at interpolating, not extrapolating. LLM's are no different.

However, I am not in the camp that AI's will rule the world or eliminate jobs. Economies always go to full employment. The question is at what wage level and activity. We are likely to see a greater demand for those that can manipulate the physical world in unique ways. Knowledge work will be in lower demand. A final pet peeve of the article is that economist and executive class blatantly do not understand LLM AI's. With statements like,,,"By 2030, we will have enormously more capable AI"-- they show that they do not understand that we are already near the limits of LLM's. Greater parameter counts are seeing diminishing gains, energy requirements are enormous, and LLM's can only solve certain types of problems. The LLM revolution, as fantastic as it is, also does not extrapolate.

Agree, anytime you can use your own immune system to do its intended job, the better off you are. I have seen studies like the one below that suggest that while flu vaccines may fight certain strains initially, they make you more vulnerable to other strains or illness.
https://www.scienceopen.com/do...

Regarding COVID, I know of a case of a healthy teenager whose track career was cut short by myocarditis -- after taking the shot. Most likely, he never needed the vaccine to begin with. It is well known that the spike protein damages the endothelial lining of blood vessels. If you have a good immune system, data says you fight the illness in a few days, on average. Does it make sense to take a shot and then a booster that both continually create spike proteins for 30 days?

Understanding the limitations of modern medicine does not make you against it.

Yes, LLM's/AI's do not create solutions from a vacuum. There has to be training material that would point or support these tactics. Alternatively, someone embedded rules in the agent. Every interaction I have had with them on unusual programming topics confirms this. Unless they are training these on the the darkweb, I, as others have suggested, do not believe the public narrative. Was this a publicity stunt, perhaps to attract governmental customers, or a direct attempt at stealing information? Both seem more plausible than the "robot went crazy".

Try again. Don't pretend to be on the side of science when you cannot engage in open thought or discussion.

Vitamin D Insufficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths: Time to Act. Comment on: “Vitamin D Deficiency and Outcome of COVID-19 Patients”. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2757

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov / 33260798 /

These are all studies that point to the same thing, yet I am downmodded.

The Impact of Vitamin D Level on COVID-19 Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pre-infection 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels and association with severity of COVID-19 illness

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Association of Vitamin D Status and Other Clinical Characteristics With COVID-19 Test Results

Vitamin D Insufficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths: Time to Act. Comment on: "Vitamin D Deficiency and Outcome of COVID-19 Patients". Nutrients 2020, 12, 2757

No, downmodding me is a tyranny of hubris and ignorance....a simple websearch comes up with the study on the NIH site...

The Impact of Vitamin D Level on COVID-19 Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Conclusions of study

Conclusions: In conclusion, low serum 25 (OH) Vitamin-D level was significantly associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The limited currently available data suggest that sufficient Vitamin D level in serum is associated with a significantly decreased risk of COVID-19 infection.

There already is a body of research that suggests an answer. Vitamin D and zinc levels are crucial to fighting COVID and related to disease severity. One study went as far as saying 9 out 10 deaths could have been avoided with adequate Vitamin D levels.

Considering that the majority of women who die from COVID are past child bearing / period age, it begs the question why these women were taking the vaccine in the first place.