Did the “phablets” take over the world?

> is this going to be another Vision Pro?

100%

The market for a phone like this is extremely small and the price makes it even smaller.

Exact words were said numerous times in Apple's lineup over the years. I don't think this is like Vision Pro however

> Nobody has good answers for any of these things. It's a folly to think someone else has it figured out.

We don’t know that. Only history will tell us who figured it out and why.

What I don’t understand is why there is a clear decision between decisions and delivering on decision, other than the artificial need to retain control.

I don’t see a real roadblock that will prevent AI making better devisions than humans.

I always thought that the Gettier problem was an academic curiosity.

Someone who justifiably holds beliefs about the eventual impact of AI that later turn out to be true---can they be declared to have been knowledgeable about the subject matter?

It could be that the ratio of the amount of context required for a good decision to happen to the amount of context an entity is willing or able to provide is not high enough. E.g. the AI might dictate my life better than me if I upload every single thing about myself to it, but for privacy reasons I only tell it a small amount about me.

And maybe corporations make similar decisions.

(You might counter that there will be local AI. This is true but it’s still risky to let an autonomous system have all your sensitive information, especially in the AI hacking age.)

I was wondering that too. I suppose if we take it to the extreme end of the spectrum, "end world hunger" is a great decision but how to actually realize it is another problem.

"better" is a qualifier

While this sounds good in theory, I suspect the actual result would be much worse for justice in most cases. With the corporation acting as its own legal entity, if you are wronged, you sue and obtain justice from the corporation. If instead you needed to sue each and every shareholder to obtain their share of the liabilities, you'd likely spend many more years in court as each individual owner argues why they aren't personally liable for the given act because they didn't have knowledge, or control over the specific chain of events that caused you harm, and the courts have to sort out each individual case.

That would make everyone who has a 401K, IRA, mutual fund, ETF or stocks liable for every action made by the companies invested in. That would be insane.

I am not making a judgement call, merely describing what the GP meant.

I do believe it is not as clear cut though — taking it to an extreme, imagine you directly invested in Epstein's sexual abuse business but only as minority owner. Should you be held liable or not? Now let's extend that to a pyramid scheme lending business. Or a company using child labour? When can we claim immunity and when not?

the question is why should a legal fiction defy the natural liability. It is perhaps an example of 'common law' versus 'civil law'. A judge may find there is no personal responsibility of the shareholders for some crime, but the CEO is, but the shareholders, being partial owners of the business of course need to drum up the dollars to make a situation right be it a lemonade stand of a billion dollar corporation. As for claiming immunity, I don't see why you should not be responsible for the actions of a company that you own and use to make profit.

Are they actively trying to create a dystopia?!?

Here’s where it gets really fun. Watermarking could also be extended to include identifying information. Takes more tokens but maybe something like 200-300 words could do it.

Sounds like bad management to me

My company got rid of line management. I now report to a director with over 20 reports and barely any time for career development. Our performance reviews are AI generated and we’re losing engineers. The industry has gone completely insane.

I kind of angree with the anrgument that for an ideal AGI abstractions are not needed. It would write everything perfectly without even needing a programming language. It would know everything to the byte and would create perfect machine code meeting all the requirements as perfect as it’s possible.

But the reality is different. First of all LLM were trained on current data, with the abstractions we currently use.

Secondly they suffer they same problems we do, their context size is way too small to just simply ignore abstractions.

Even with an ideal AGI you would need abstractions because in order to talk in specifics you would need an abstraction.

We don’t know

Of course we do. Unless the brain is an object unlike anything else in the known universe, then it's an input → output machine.

Not what what the parent post claimed.

The brain is the source of intelligence

The brain solely does probabilistic conversion of inputs to outputs

Therefore the thing that makes us intelligent is our probabilistic conversion of inputs to outputs

Ergo GP's assertion is wrong

I bet you that if their dear leader suggested this, most of the people would vote to have their voting rights be taken away.

> they fought for one new power hungry scumbag to replace old power hungry scumbag.

Because, as Plato argued, the best rulers are the ones that don’t want to rule, as ruling is a very heavy duty, if not burden.

If you strip corruption, it has no rewards. Instead you have to put up with “scambags” accusing for the things the corruption they would do if they had the power.

Why does this sound familiar?

Plato was philosopher. Not sociopath. For sociopaths, power over other people is only thing that matters. It's not a burden, money is nice, but it's mostly a tool to have more power.