See, that's why court proceedings are public, so that the public can verify that courts are fair. It's also why judges are appointed by democratically elected politicians. Who appointed your arbitrator?

And of course the court system is bad and unfair in a bunch of ways. But it's starting from a much better place than secret, forced arbitration.

It would help to delete all the text on the page, and write it without AI.

For example, "model and manifest bytes together pick the class; every version also plays on Open"

1. People with nothing useful going on who found out that spouting made up crap about AI got them an audience. 2. People working on AI that want to feel like they're working on the Manhattan project.

The chances of an AI going foom rounds to 0%. It's worth a few dozen researchers planning for it, but the widespread panic is ridiculous.

The big labs have hundreds to thousands of engineers working on their AIs. To improve the next model, you must first understand more about how the current model works. They're not magically getting better, but they are steered to improve, and their capabilities are tied to and do not outpace our ability to steer them. You cannot push tech forwards without understanding it better, despite some people claiming AI is dark magic.

And I don't have my hands over my ears. It's worth cushioning people from the impact AI will have on careers and media, and regulating concrete bad effects.

But Bryan said it better than I could. The people pushing this message of fear know deep down that they just want to feel important.

Amazon does the same with product ads.

The past decade they've been replacing any leadership who thinks about serving their users or creating amazing things with people who can only think in terms of immediate money.

Don't expect them to make anything new or interesting from here on out. They got lucky that the old guard was so interested in AI, and the new leadership was unable to snuff it out before it turned out to be valuable. But Google will be unable to make anything new after AI since they have harvested their seedcorn.

Hmm I wonder how these were originally funded when it was less likely that they would work.

And by cutting funding now, I wonder what we're missing out on in the future.

Sometimes a coworker will be an ML star for a year or two, but then suddenly run out of steam. It's brutal to watch.

I used to think most smart people had similar distributions of good ideas, and it was just that the hardest working tried out all 50 of their ideas to pick out the 2 good ones. But I've seen smart and hardworking people have a hit rate of 0.

Ugh. Just write your own damn post already

It took in almost every idea, and the battlefield showed us which do work and which don't. We get to keep RAII, move vs copy, smart pointers, placement-new, and generics. We get to drop auto_ptr, copy-by-default, its specific exceptions implementation (fight me), multiple virtual inheritance, and templates as full code substitution.

In my opinion the battles have played out, and Rust is the best sum-up of what worked (it even inherited the compile times! Lucky us!)

AI is terrible at writing. Its prose is awful and horrendous to read. Plus, the whole point of reading a written piece is to hear about the author's new ideas or experiences. If AI wrote your piece it's both bad and pointless. I can also prompt the AI to hear what it knows about.