So you agree you are being an idiot?

No I'm agreeing that you're a moron.

Do you need a working EUV mahine in order to build your first EUV machine?

Yes or No. Simple question. The GGGGP was saying you do not.

That is what you appear to be disputing and I agree with you that you are being an idiot for disputing it.

All you have is someone saying it is true.

Is that what you think? You really fail at reading. He's talking about making 2nm fabs not making 2nm chips.

What does "drive better than humans" mean? Drive better in all possible scenarios? That's likely impossible now and probably forever. Maybe driver better in a majority of scenarios weighted by occurrence probability? Maybe, but we don't currently have the technology to validate this requirement.

Indeed it's interesting!

There are obviously mistakes that SDCs will make that humans never will (ignoring sci-fi shit, I'm talking about the current state of the art), and things they'll be worse at.

There's also mistakes they won't make: they never get tired, impatient or angry. They never turn around to yell at (or beat, yep I've seen that) their kids while driving. Being more widely trained they won't lack experience driving with a find misting of unexpected liquid on the roads (hi LA you suck at driving in the rain) etc. They won't text. Won't try to punish other road users. Won't get drunk or high. And so on. Well they shouldn't. If SDC companies think they can skirt or edge over the law to get a competitive advantage they will, and now you'll have law breaking at scale (well kinda like regular drivers!).

And they can (Waymo, not Tesla) have superhuman senses, e.g. lidar and radar.

But... well it can be measured to an extent: you can measure deaths per billion km, and see if SDCs do better or worse. Though that can hide a lot of things. For example if they are utterly unable to cope with unexpected situations and stall blocking the roads, then deaths caused by blocked emergency services won't be attributed correctly to them.

Certainly any comparison to the worst drivers is useless.

Depends: I would assume (though common sense often isn't so YMMV) that the worst drivers are responsible for a much higher proportion of problems than the best. So let's say the SDC apocalypse eliminate the worst X% of drivers, but also flatten the best 100-X% down to X. I'd imagine that there is some value of X where this is a net improvement.

Question is what is X. Probably middleish I'd imagine since the worst X% do the most damage.

But of course also SDCs will always make different mistakes which makes it hard to evaluate because the X% level SDC won't really be like an X% level human.

I don't think the cherry picked examples of "SDC does something dumbass" because (e.g. in the UK, where we have some of the safest roads in the world) 1600 people die per year due to motor vehicle collisions a substantial number of those are due to utterly fucking stupid people (nearly 50% are alcohol related).

It's an interesting question. That of course centres around the mechanics of SDCs driving compared to humans. There are likely to be other damaging failure modes when you have 3 companies controlling almost all cars, where for example certain kinds of traffic management become impossible because getting google to agree to code for it is impossible and they somehow won't pay fines. Or you might have the "cruise forever if you can't find a parking spot" button which will will make traffic even worse because the roads are free to use and there'll be a mechanism to abuse free resources for personal gain even further.

This seems like essentially a variant of the Waluigi effect hypothesized here https://www.lesswrong.com/post... which had the advantage of a pretty fun name for the situation, and is worth reading

I've not seen that before. It was an interesting read.

Huh I agree with you, pretty strongly, about something!

Personally I think the right to privacy stuff is a little broken. It was fine to have no particular expectation of privacy in a public place because when those laws were written the only practical way to violate it was to have 1 person essentially stalking one other, and that doesn't scale. It's really expensive, so a few people might have their privacy violated in an unreasonable way but as a population it was fine.

We now have the tech to scale cheaply, so a well funded organisation can follow huge numbers of people all the time.

Depending on your views of private corporations, that may or may not be acceptable.

However, the temptation for the government is always too great here, and if that data is available they will use it legally or not. I think the only way to stop them is to make it much harder for companies to do panopticon surveillance in the first place.

The biggest shock of all is finding Ted Cruz on the right side. I wonder if it's just "a stopped clock is right twice a day" in action.

Master Control Program, as played by the most excellent Ed Dillinger

The unwashed masses had knowledge for a while now. Even before the Internet, there were public libraries. Did they use them? Mostly not.

The problem here is that this puts making dangerous stuff in the hands of morons that would have never been able to do it before. And morons also do not understand consequences and there are many very aggressive morons.

We are not. That is all not very difficult and LLMs can deduce how to do it from other stuff. Sure, they will get things wrong and hallucinate sometimes, but making cocaine was discovered about 125 years ago, the first nerve gas was 90 years ago and bomb making was discovered by the Chinese in the 11th century. This is all not hard to do, given a general applied science background. The only real problem is that you may end up killing yourself if you are not an expert.

The problem is that there are people dumb enough to not manage with a general web-search, but just about smart enough to manage with LLM instructions where they can ask questions and the the LLM to diagniose problems.

If you are talking engineers or scientists in any physical science, they all can do massive damage. They just routinely understand that this is counterproductive and hence it basically never happens.

"Talk radio isn't a target of FCC's 'equal time' notice, Brendan Carr says"

https://www.politico.com/news/...

It will not be reliable at it, but it can still succeed in giving good instructions sometimes. At least for simple processes.

That is not enough. The data on how to do such things is widely distributed in other things. LLMs are somewhat good at combining that and hence your idea does not work.

One problem would be that in some (many?) cases that answer is not enough to determine whether something needs to be censored. I expect there are more problems.

Just more evidence how problematic this technology actually is.

Great. Amazon will soon be flooded with self-published books written partially by AI telling about the new changes.