The fact that you're unwilling to pay the incredibly low price of attaching even a pseudonym to your statement speaks volumes. Not even by mentioning it in your AC post.

You should read the actual words you quoted. I answered the question asked... then you responded saying "it's obvious they were asking a different questions". What a dipshit.

Because it's almost always better to spend someone else's money than your own. Failing that, it's almost always better to spend future money rather than current money. The "almosts" are there because the terms have to be scrutinized, but if the terms are good... you hang onto the cash and revenues you have. Having cash gives you flexibility and enables you to take better advantage of opportunities. And if you end up not needing the cash for anything, you can always invest it. This may not be the first rule of business, but it's got to be in the top ten.

It's honestly a good rule for personal finances, as well. If someone offers you a million dollar loan at 2% interest, your immediate answer should be "Can I get more"? And for more quotidian stuff, it's better to front-load income and defer expenses whenever and wherever possible. Pay bills when they're due, not when they arrive. Use a credit card and pay the balance off every month, letting you keep your money in your account for longer, interest-free. These strategies allow you to make some money by investing it, of course, but mostly it gives you flexibility if you need it. Which if you have decent savings you never should... but it's still better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

There is an increasing body of evidence that this is also how human reasoning normally works. Usually, we make decisions first and only afterwards (if necessary) engage our reasoning ability to generate an explanation of our decision. Experiments show that we're actually just as good at explaining decisions that were the opposite of the ones we made, assuming we can first be tricked into believing that they were our decisions.

Of course there are cases where we engage in lengthy, logic-based sequences of reasoning to derive a conclusion, especially if we've spent many years in higher education that trains us to think that way. This is particularly true when we reason in groups, exchanging ideas and critiquing others' reasoning and conclusions. It appears that for most of human history this is probably the primary way we employed reason, though in such social reasoning the goal is less to ensure accurate results than it is for the most skilled and smartest debaters to get their way (thereby improving their genes' probability of survival)... though it's still the case that making better arguments is the best way to "win" and that better arguments are more likely to be at least directionally correct. I'm sure you've noticed that your own reasoning gets better when you attempt to order your thoughts to potentially present them to a critical listener. This even works quite well when the "listener" isn't able to be critical; hence the utility of "rubber duck debugging". Of course, discussing with an intelligent and listener who is engaged in trying to critique your reasoning and offers their own counterpoints for your critique works even better.

It shouldn't surprise us that AI exhibits similar characteristics. Their core structure is at least notionally modeled on the neural networks of our own brains, and they're trained on large bodies of our text. Their evolution over the last few years also models our thought processes. The first hugely-successful LLMs just produced output without any sort of "thought process". That quickly ran into limitations, then someone came up with the idea of feeding their output back in and enabling them to engage in "self-talk" during which they could evaluate, criticize and improve their conclusions. This "reasoning overlay" looks at least superficially similar to the stream-of-thought self-talk that we engage in when thinking our way logically through a problem. And again, much like us, when LLMs do engage in a longer chain of thought, they actually can explain their conclusions by looking at the sequence of steps they went through.

There are also ways in which human and AI cognition differs substantially, of course, and in many ways AI thinking is far inferior to human cognition. Some of this is based on their different approach to context. An AI with a 1M token context window can keep at its "fingertips" far more precise context then we can -- we struggle to remember more than about 7 numbers for more than a few seconds -- but we're much better at maintaining a "big picture", which we achieve not by remembering everything but by being better at selectively extracting the most salient bits (I expect that improving AI ability to do this will be one of the next large steps forward in capability).

Any way, the point is that AI "thinking" is far more similar to ours than you credit it to be.

No one can really define what "real AI" is. As for whether it will try to kill us... it is utterly impossible for us to say what AI might or might not do as it continues to improve. Your point about its reward system is potentially valid, but with a little thought it's pretty easy to come up with ways in which a superintelligence might destroy us while trying to serve us. Even more to the point, we don't know what the "derived" motivation system inside the systems is. We can't look inside. Observing the self-talk stream-of-consciousness gives us some insight, insight that we actually can't have into humans' thought processes, but it's not definitive.

Do some reading about "instrumental" vs "final" goals. I highly recommend Nick Bostrom's book, "Superintelligence". It's pretty old and quite dated in a lot of ways, but it gives you the tools to think usefully about these questions.

Anyone who says we need to do X to solve climate change is wrong, because there is no one "X" that does it.

We need renewables, nuclear, electrification, synthetic fuels, forestation, mangroves, direct air capture, BECCS, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, cloud enhancement to increase albedo, possibly orbital solar shading, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and more that I don't know about including things maybe no one has yet thought of.

We created this problem through a wide variety of mechanisms, burning many different kinds of fossil fuels in many different contexts, and we're going to need an even wider variety to fix it.

And even if they happened faster, it still wouldn't be enough. The focus on emissions reduction to the exclusion of everything else is going to kill a lot of people.

The only way we're going to fix this is to get to net negative, and while emissions reduction can help it will never be enough. That being the case, we should be investing a lot into capture and sequestration research.

Absolutely. We should admit that we're in for some more CO2 rise before we can make it fall, no matter what we do, and invest in geoengineering research focused on techniques to directly reduce insolation and ocean acidification.

None of this is either/or. We need to be doing all of this in parallel: Electrification, renewables, nuclear, and synthetic fuels to reduce burning of fossil fuels, carbon recapture, especially at high-intensity carbon sourced (e.g. cement plants), but also from the atmosphere, and geoengineering to directly cool the planet and increase ocean pH. And we can... but the laser focus on renewables and electrification and renewables is harming the future.

That seems like it would be relatively easy, and safe as long as no one makes a suicide cord and tries to use it to power the house. I don't know if any of this class of equipment provides it.

I thought they were all independent contractors!!!

Assume there's a legitimate company out there that will verify driver's licenses. Do they really need to store everything "online"? No, they do not.

They can store it "offline" with a 1- or 2- minute delay to access the data, caching it in "online" systems for maybe 15 minutes.

This, plus alarms when large amounts of data is being moved from "offline" to "online" in a short period of time, would've either made this leak slower than it was or, more likely, led to this year-long leak being discovered and plugged long ago.

Is this inconvenient? Sure, but it's not a practical impediment for "batch jobs" like employment identity verification.

For "real time" things like renting a car, the vendors will have to begin the verification process, do things to "kill time" like review the auto-rental contract or go with the sales clerk to inspect the car, then tell the customer "you are good to go" or "we need more information to verify your identity."

For situations like a bank where you can't "fill the time," the bank can set up a highly-secure on-premises id-verification computer that can act as a long-term cache. Everyone whose ID isn't locally cached will need to "step aside" for a minute while their ID is verified. Or better yet, they can start the ID-verification process before getting to the front of the line.

Need? There are lots of things you don't "need". But this seems like something that could legitimately improve my oral hygiene because -- like most people, I suspect -- I don't floss nearly as often as I should. Having it integrated into the brushing process would mean I do it 2-3 times per day, rather than once every few days. Is that worth $500? I guess it depends on how important $500 is to you. I'm not very price-sensitive and I am very lazy.

I'll wait until these have been available for a while and see what the reviews look like... but if the reviews are positive I'd say there's about a 95% chance I'll buy one.

I have one, and I don't use it enough. It takes time and effort to fill, use and clean up. Did I mention I'm lazy?

The notion that democracy and capitalism are innately incompatible is rather interesting, given that every long-running democracy has a predominantly capitalist economy. There has never been a durable multiparty democracy with a state-owned or centrally-planned economy. Not one! There are several examples of non-democratic nations with capitalist economies, but the complete lack of any successful non-capitalist democracy argues pretty strongly that capitalism is a necessary (though not sufficient) prerequisite for a healthy democracy, which is the opposite of incompatibility.

I did note that you attached the qualifier "unfettered", but has there ever been an example of unfettered capitalism? I'm not aware of one, and it seems fundamentally impossible. Capitalism requires a state to enforce property rights and contract law, and it's hard to think how any state could exist that does those things but doesn't also impose some regulation. If by "unfettered" you mean "lightly regulated" rather than the literal meaning of the word, then it becomes a question of degree but democracies have gone through many cycles of liberalizing and regulating without ceasing to be democracies.

No, in fact most attempts at democratic socialism have been entered peacefully. They tend to begin by election of a socialist leader with enough support to begin nationalizing all or most industry. Examples include the Allende regime in Chile, India's government for much of the latter half of the 20th century, Sweden's Meidner Plan, Venezuela (Chavez' second attempt; his first try was a coup but then he was elected), etc.

Socialist revolutions almost always install non-democratic regimes, though many claimed to be democratic (e.g. the USSR had decades of elections in which every race had only a single candidate, chosen by the nomenklatura).

They did make as good an attempt as anyone... but still had to restrict emigration to prevent their population fleeing the workers' paradise.

Fair, many people do use the term imprecisely.

I doubt it. Which is why the cheaper devices being discussed won't provide backup power during an outage.

The discussion is about equipment that is designed to plug into the house wiring via an outlet, not a standalone battery that provides its own outlets. If you want to discuss an entirely different sort of equipment, then obviously the conclusions change.

This is too strong. There's a large distance between "Unwilling to tell a pollster they regret" and "Are quite happy".