I'm not trained in formal computer science, so I'm unable to evaluate the quality of this paper's argument, but there's a preprint out that claims to prove that current computing architectures will never be able to advance to AGI, and that rather than accelerating, improvements are only going to slow down due to the exponential increase in resources necessary for any incremental advancements (because it's an NP-hard problem). That doesn't prove LLMs are end of the line, but it does suggest that additional improvements are likely to be marginal.
The one colleague using AI at my company produced (CUDA) code with lots of memory leaks that required two expert developers to fix. LLMs produce code based on vibes instead of following language syntax and proper coding practices. Maybe that would be ok in a more forgiving high level language, but I don't trust them at all for low level languages.
Sigh, another major thinker who totally misunderstands LLMs and their capabilities. The fact that he cites Musk as a credible source on "AI" says it all.
The wealthy passengers shouldn't have depended on the crew to rescue them; that's socialism. They should just pull themselves out of the water by their bootstraps.
But it does compromise. Netflix has the worst banding issues in low-light scenes of any of the streaming services I've tried. It's hard not to notice and it's very annoying.
Driving is never going to be predictable enough to consistently get you to a destination where 30 seconds is a life-or-death class difference. The other people you're getting angry at are also workers struggling to live in the same capitalist hellscape and you don't know what's going on in or around their car (this is the "fundamental attribution error"). Your anger at other drivers is misplaced, and further, makes you a more dangerous driver.
Seriously. Drivers really seem to lose their sense of time. Going 5 mph slower (or even 15) for a couple minutes won't impact your arrival time (or will do so only negligibly) because you're just going to have to wait at the next light anyway. And getting angry while driving is just as dangerous as other causes of distracted driving.
"Aren't I", as in "I'm still going with you, aren't I?", which, when uncontracted, becomes "are I not?" It should be "ain't I" since "ain't" is a proper contraction for "amn't", but there's been an irrational suppression of "ain't".
russia is such a deeply unserious country