Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
Quite possibly. Not all breaches of contract are a result of corruption, but some could be, sure.
But that’s not my point. My point is that this isn’t relevant to SpaceX investing its money in some other company. It’s SpaceX money, not “government” money. They can waste it on stupid hitlerbots if they want to.
At that point the problem then isn’t “SpaceX is investing in Grok AI”, it’s “SpaceX is violating its contract with NASA by not doing the work it’s been paid to do.”
That would indeed be a problem, if true. But it’s a completely different problem.
Most roadwork contractors are spending most of the money doing job and paying employees, not funneling it to an neonazi AI.
Sure, and that’s their choice. It’s their money to invest, be they good investments or bad ones.
I’m not saying that funnelling money into xAI is a good idea. I happen to think it’s a terrible idea, I would much rather that SpaceX not do that. But it’s not corruption.
SpaceX has taken a ton of money from taxpayers, (at the expense of NASA,) but hasn’t been making good progress on the Artemis program, for example.
It’s got a milestone-based contract with NASA for Artemis. It’s paid to achieve milestones. So if it hasn’t been making good progress it isn’t getting paid.
If you think the contract could be better written then maybe that’s on NASA to do a better job negotiating. It has nothing to do with Grok one way or the other.
SpaceX is a private company, once it has been paid money that money is SpaceX’s and is not taxpayer money any more. It’s been spent. If the government hired a contractor to build a road, paid them to do so, and then the contractor took the money they’d been paid and invested it in some other company that the contractor owned, is that “corruption?”
Insert standard disclaimer here; Elon Musk is a terrible person and he’s made a lot of terrible decisions, etc. and so forth. It’s not going to stop me from being called a bootlicker, not sure why I bother inserting it.
Not home users, but small businesses could. It can ensure total information security.
That’s how all medical advances work, they are expensive when they are first developed and then over time they generally become cheaper as patents expire and processes are refined.
Once upon a time only a handful of people could get insulin to treat their diabetes. When it was first discovered you had to process huge numbers of pancreases to extract enough for one person. Should we have opposed research into treating diabetes because only the rich would be able to afford it?
Do you think it is not a widespread or harmful condition?
Ah yes, we shouldn’t do research into a condition that harms literally everyone because there are a handful of people we don’t like who suffer from it.
For example, there’s this class that military helicopter pilots take as part of training for surviving water landings.
This is nothing remotely like the scenario OP is talking about.
If they’ve read enough about the subject then they’ll realize that they’re not drowning. You don’t drown simply from being in water, the actions required to let you float with your face in the air is almost trivial. Knowing what those actions are is enough to get you to the “okay, now how do I go somewhere?” Step.
The point of this post is to ask whether reading about techniques is enough to “at least, be able to swim enough to reach the steep end and save themselves from drowning.”
And yes, yes it is. It’s not going to make you a good swimmer but it will certainly allow you to accomplish that.
Someone who is able to walk around and control their breathing already has those prerequisite motor skills.
All these “absolutely not” responses are silly, IMO. I speak as someone who’s quite a good swimmer. Practical experience is important to get good, certainly. But if your main objective is simply to not sink and to have a basic ability to propel yourself, I think that’s stuff you can manage quite easily starting from pure book learning. The “not sink” part is key, because that will give you the time to actually experience what it’s like moving around in the water and clarify what that book learning told you.
You probably don’t need 6 months of study, at that point your time would be better spent finding an actual pool. The sorts of basics I’m talking about here that would be useful is stuff like how to float with your face in the air so you can breathe, and once you’ve got that part down how to efficiently kick your legs to propel you rather than just flailing around uselessly. Learn those key tidbits, drill on just that, and then if you find yourself unexpectedly tossed in water you’ll know what to do to not die and get yourself back to the edge.
Reading will nevertheless help. It’s not going to give you perfect form on your breast stroke, but that’s not what OP is going for here. He wants to not die if he suddenly finds himself in deep water. There’s plenty of benefit from reading about how to go about not dying under those sorts of circumstances.
Yeah. I consider Trump the “blow everything up” candidate, he got a lot of support from people who were just so generically desperate that they wanted to vote for whoever seemed like they were going to majorly change something, somehow. It almost didn’t matter what Trump did as long as he smashed the existing order while doing it.
I’m not trying to argue for or against this position. As I said all I’m doing is explaining a misrepresentation of the position that people are holding, namely that “a machine that can’t think straight will do it for us.”
I don’t see what it’s going to conclude that we haven’t already.
Well, that’s the point of trying to build ASI. To have it think of things that we haven’t been able to think of.
I really, really, can’t picture a scenario where we actually listen.
Of course not, you’re not an ASI.
That’s fine, I’m just correcting the misrepresentation of the view that was in the headline.
Nobody’s expecting a “machine that can’t think straight” to do it. Some people are hoping that a more competent machine will be developed.
Right. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.