I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).

If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?

Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.

Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how those examples are deterministic while gAI is not. Your responses with personal attacks makes it harder to address your claims and makes me think you are here to convince yourself and not others.

I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.

All the technologies you listed behave deterministically, or at least predictably enough that we generally don’t have to worry about surprises from that abstraction layer. Technology does not just move on, practitioners need to actually find it practical beyond their next project that satisfies the shareholders.

Establishing a hegemon can only be done after the revolution. Once you eat that pill there’s no perfection afterwards without some self-destruction.

I love Micheal Parenti but that quote doesn’t address the criticism. Parenti talks of revolution, OP talks of a government preserving the status quote.

It could be different but that is what the companies are stating as their operational life span when they report their financials. They used to say they would only last 4 years…

Haven’t seen this mentioned yet: the RAM they are making for these AI chips are built to burn up after 6 years. The RAM is built into the processing units to reduce latency but the whole unit is designed with short planned obsolescence so burning out after 5-6 years is expected. The assumption is that by the time they burn up they you will replace them with a more energy efficient unit.

I like that you brought up an example that can be analyzed. The court ordered him to apologize and he didn’t follow through, there has to be some consequence to disobeying a judge. But it seems to me they could benefit from less hegemonic judges.

I really wish I understood the Chinese legal system better. It’s like they operate under a different constellation of rights and it isn’t immediately obvious to me how these cases play out. Maybe I should try finding some modern legal dramas from the mainland…

Again, you are allowed to say the CCP does not respect human rights as defined by the west, they will openly agree with that statement and repeat it back to you. But to say the people don’t have rights to even say that is inflammatory because it is false.

Being inflammatory is not the same as someone complaining about an unjust government nor is it the same as feeling bad about something. It is a rhetorical strategy that is not suited for bridging misunderstandings and that is why such content gets removed from their platforms.

I am currently reading a book (Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers) by a CCP member and he talks about:

• The merits of Democracy
• Tienamen Square
• A better leadership style for China than what they have

So you can talk about these things, but what isn’t allowed is being inflammatory.

It’s like I agree with your observations but come to different conclusions about what is to be done. I agree Obama, nor any other politician can deliver the change we need given the system we have. To me the lesson isn’t Obama was so much better than Bush or Trump, but that we need to look to ourselves and not for some great leader to save us.

We are looking forward by making excuses for our past? Lol okay.