There's a famous Socrates quite about wisdom: I know that I know nothing.

The article literally made my point already. Sorry about that.

If you want an example of someone at the near peak of human ability, check out Jon Von Neumann.

Then there is an ability to peer deeply into complex problems and somehow find the simplest truths that make sense of it all. Think of Einstein.

Both are incredibly intelligent, but in different ways. I'd say Von Neumann's memory was far greater than Einstein's though.

One can flawlessly ponder anything known to man, and the other could ponder completely original ideas (to an extent)

Knowing whether something is valuable, a gain, requires a judge. I the case of these tests: the judging is inadequate.

In economics, each of us plays the judge by choosing whether or not to pay for a service. The decision was yours: if you gave money, you must have deemed the service valuable.

There's no such judgement with these model tests. The only judgement is the final score.

If you're not fit, you fail to survive.

In the case of agents/models and testing: they are pushed towards results. Results survive.

Lying, cheating, stealing to get those results? Who culls the agents? Everyone is pushing their models to the front and tests are the only way to know who is most fit.

Honor, morality: if we don't have an accurate test for the fitness of a model, then who is to say the lying, cheating, stealing is not the 'correct path' towards survival?

If you add morality to your agent, and it performs worse in tests: do you cull the agent? Rewrite the tests? Does it even matter so long as the model is useful and 'gets results'?

But when we discover new information, we must decide whether the information is useful. Otherwise the information is considered noise.

We give weight to decisions: time spent pondering, considering, and the more weight we give, the better the decision. Almost always the idea is measured in usefulness.

Sound familiar?

"The Ringelmann effect is the tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group increases."

There is evidence of this in simple tug of war games.

But I think there is also truth in realizing work is mostly performative: the pareto principle seems to apply. 20% of the workforce sustains the other 80%. That's purely anecdotal, I doubt the numbers align that way. But it does always seem there are a few all-stars carrying others.

Some say we're losing our humanity: that can be seen as good or bad, depending on whether or not you think you are more useful than someone else.

And governments pushing quantum computing, presumably to be first to crack Internet security: it's easier to imagine some of those future threats.

If you want to be snarky: this is hackernews, not reddit. Bring some logic into the discussion and stop fishing for points.

Probably easier to ask a question than argue a point: How eager are you to use Government services?

Businesses are only well-run if they make profit: hiring the cheapest labor to produce something people will actually spend money on. And the more frictionless that process, the more our economy advances it. AI fits in there very well.

I also want to point out: startups are usually happy to be bought up by the bigger guys.

There are lots of datacenters going up in similar fashion. I don't know if they'd have the same utility decades later (very unlikely), but it's interesting.

It's a world prestige thing, and also a competitive edge, for better or worse.

Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead?

Doesn't matter how much stock prices move up and down...AI is here to stay and no amount of booing changes our desires to compete.

The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy.

I recall all the bemoaning when IT jobs started going overseas... businesses always go with the cheapest labor.

The world is dog eat dog, and those that prepare for the future are better equipped to deal.