Edit: and more than that, towards the defense of alternative political and geopolitical models. (Actual examples redacted to keep a calmer water surface.) (Already 'alternative' seems so preposterous a term for the context - as if "rape" vs "invite to dinner" could be covered by the term.)

-- it does not seem that those who had to bear the collateral damages of the whole action (e.g. economic loss, diplomatic loss) will be paid;

-- there have been hints that some not involved in the action (hit by the retaliation) also paid (to appease the retaliator).

but I do totally care about having here an environment that is _substantially_ civilized.

That implies that the discussion must be carried out with respect and effort - actual, factual respect. In that context, shallow dismissals include "hit and run" (downvote and do not substantiate unless perfectly evident), "sneer" (the same) etc.

--

Oh, incidentally:

> We are at staggeringly low levels of general civilization and ### even push it

there is a downfall of civilization in the "western" world at least, and you are focusing at the cursing. Look at it: it makes no sense. It is not even part of the accused phenomenon - whereas the shallowness of the relations is (downfall of the societal exchange).

I have been complaining against this bad "culture" since the start.

https://www.computing.co.uk/news/2025/security/discord-admit...

The extremely obvious foundation that what is important is not /what/ you are trying to do but /how/ you are trying to do it.

"Maiming for love."

Does this answer your note? (That's Bloomberg above - "phrase it as you want...")

(Or, act to show - roots and consequences - that this should be the proper procedure.)

Wikipedia articles _and YT videos_.

Amazing result, very precious, just skimming in it for a few minutes was immensely enriching.

-- a growth in power requires a growth in human qualities (wisdom, maturity, responsibility) for sustainability; and technology-enabled possibilities are increases in power;

-- conformism and convenience are /exactly/ - congratulations sucrosesucrose, we had noticed and analyzed and every day increasingly come to the same assessment - the two core active faces of ignorance that are destroying current western societies. We came to the same conclusions, we identified the same two dark cancers.

This said, some of the current technological advances are enablers, if well used, in greatly curing the underlying ignorance, and consequently the phenomenons of "conformism" and "convenience".

> Though, seeing how things are going with the scientific literature, I think thatʼs an intelligence implosion. But I digress. My point is that there are many ways AI can self-improve in some sense, and yet itʼs not the sense that anyone had in mind when they were thinking of the intelligence explosion.

> It was supposed to be a runaway effect caused by AI improving their own code that leads to exponential or super-exponential intelligence increase.

> So, how close are we to that? I already last year about the beginning of self-improving AI with large language models that tune their own hyper parameters or on the more applied side AI thatʼs improved microchips used for AI training. Self-improvement, yes, but not the runaway effect weʼre waiting for. But, these examples have multiplied in the past months and some of these AIs do now indeed write new AI code. The clearest recent example is probably Andrej Karpathyʼs auto research. Itʼs a small Python setup where an artificial intelligent agent modifies language models training code, trains the model for 5 minutes, checks whether the result improved, keeps or discards the change, and repeats. Metaʼs hyperagents work like this, too. These are element-based research agents that write code, run experiments, debug failures, keep works, and toss what doesnʼt. These are not yet models directly rewriting their own brains, but it is artificial intelligence developing new artificial intelligence, albeit on a small scale.

> Weʼre indeed getting closer to the self-recursive part. Meta, a nonprofit institute for model evaluation and threat research, is keeping track of this closely. In November, they asked whether we have already reached the point where AI can do AI research well enough to speed up the next AI. To answer this question, they tested GPT-5.1 codex max on some research engineering tasks like fixing a damaged small language model. In November, their answer was, "We have not yet reached the self-acceleration point." But, that was in November and at the pace that things are going, thatʼs basically Stone Age.

> Already in February, one meta researcher published a model predicting that if current trends continue, AI could automate more than 99% of AI research and development around 2032.

> Personally, I [Sabine Hossenfelder] think itʼll happen much sooner than that. So, this is no longer just someone on the internet says the singularity is near. The people who work in the field are now discussing when and how the recursive loop is going to close and how to prepare for that event. That said, so far artificial intelligence has not replaced scientists. Itʼs merely automated the part where we try 700 things that donʼt work and pretend that this was the plan all along.

--

Note: this is not the transcript - they are selected excerpts from the transcript.

--

Now who the f. silently hit the abridgement: it's clearly for everyone's convenience. The content is a video...

In case the voiceless (already enough to stay fully silent) hitter thought this was an automation: no, it's really made through one's "hands".

In case it's an autofilter: @dang, it would need finetuning.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48525614

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48525248

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

And in a Cost/Risk/Benefit computation, cars remain incommensurately invaluable. Because one's Quality of Life without them would simply be destroyed, comparatively. The moving "castle" (legal term in the USA) can be more important than the house in crucial regards.

The point attempted at post 48501189 remains unintelligible. That cars imply risks and externalities does not clarify it.

No, it's really that the ability to move at ease is priceless.

Opposite to "before the invention of bicycle, people married within a radius in the order of the mile" (can't remember the exact stat right now).

It should be illegal, but there you are.

There is the possibility (as said by an apologetic driver) that it sometimes may be a badly functioning automation ("Too high? Oh but it's automatic").