Opinions don't necessarily equate with a desire to remove them, there could also be (dis)-incentives like taxes, removal of subsidies etc.

If it's fed to farm animals for meat, that reduces its efficiency by an order of magnitude. There's still plenty of discussion to be had if that is water well spent. It probably depends on a lot of factors.

Why would it be any different for inference? If we believe OP, it'll just become part of regular compute infra, and thus part of the renting-out-compute business model.

I think it's an open question if the current generation of inference investment will pan out, but in the long term, there'll be a balance between investment cost and margin, just as in every other industry.

I'd argue that most human classification is pre-conscious / System One. You see a table, you recognize it as a table without asking yourself "is this a table?"

I guess their marketing implies that it moves classification into system one response time.

Why is that a problem? Just don't read her stuff if you're not interested.

There are lots of people talking all the time about stuff I'm not interested in.

I've noticed that my own mind always searches for corner cases, error conditions and failure modes. This can be super helpful when planning new features (or explaining to stakeholders that certain conditions must be met first, when they want some new features), but when it extends to other things besides software, it can be psychologically unhealthy.

When c is approximately 10^7 times lower, so is the wavelength (if we keep the frequency the same), so now-visible light would have wavelengths far shorter than an atom or a molecule, and probably couldn't be easily detected by biological means.

You could say: sure, maybe we'll just see light at lower frequency. Maybe that's true, but the energy of a single photon is E = hf, where h is the Planck constant. So if we assume much lower-frequency photons, they have much lower energy, and thus become harder to detect.

Lots of other things could be different, like chemistry, heat conduction etc.

At a height of roughly 1.8, at c = 5km/h, light would take 0.1 seconds to travel from head to toe. Nerve signals are much slower than c, so human bodies likely wouldn't exist as we know them.

The list of potential implications to consider is fascinating, endless and maybe even a bit overwhelming :-)

Heck, paying with card is the default, if you do pay cash, the cashier sometimes has to cancel the card payment before accepting the cash.

It also talks about uses cases where such things are allowed to be recorded, and forbids all others.

> IMO it is much more practical to regulate and penalize the activity of using such a network than to preempt its creation.

Hard disagree. If such a network is created, foreign adversaries (or domestic ones that don't abide by the laws) can hack them. Has happened quite a number of times.

And that's the problem, because if there isn't an expectation of privacy, and we record everything that's "in public", we land in a dystopic hellscape.

The problem is really that "privacy" vs. "public" isn't a binary choice. Yes, I expect people to see me in public if they happen to walk by. That's quite different from every movement being recorded and made searchable. Most privacy laws don't really account for that being possible.

If a security bug is exploited in the wild, it's an n-day if it's been first exploited n days after the publication of the bug, and a zero-day if it's been exploited before or on the day of the publication.

When a bug is not yet exploited in the wild, it's just a discovery of a bug, not a zero-day.

> mRNA vaccines are also quite different. Do they modify the DNA? Of course not. So that's already very different.

And yet it took more than 30 years after the first mRNA experiments to develop a successful vaccine. Why it should be so much faster for CRISPR & Co?

The CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing tool was developed in 2012, so I don't find it surprising that merely 14 years later, there's only one approved treatment. From discovery to approval, drug development often takes 10-15 years, and often much longer for novel techniques. So I'd say it too early to call it overhyped for treatments.

Finally, I think we'll see a lot of treatments that don't use CRISPR-Cas9, but related gene editing techniques, but it'll take another 10 to 20 years.

Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#History for how long another novel technique has been in development before it became really widespread with the mrna-based covid-19 vaccines.

If that's not what you want, you'd need something like a virus to spread it. But then you have to ask yourself: what if that virus mutates? The specialization to certain gene markers is an evolutionary disadvantage, so evolution will tend to make it lose that restriction. Ooops.

> Much like other CRISPR therapies, delivery is a critical challenge, i.e., getting the large genome-cutting enzyme to all the targeted cells efficiently.

makes me think this is in vitro so far. So, years to decades away from being available for actual treatment in humans. Still good news.

Wouldn't have been my choice for a software project :-)