I was also going to suggest coin flips, but it’s not quite the same… I think any chaotic system is generally best modeled that way, and if you cared about the effect the system has on other things, it’s unlikely you can do better since measuring the initial state will not be feasible.

Houses are not built from scratch either. The know-how, power, water, roads, materials…

EDIT: maybe lower it on three lines instead of one?

They say they use 4 actuators, but if they only used 3, this problem would be solved.

Instead of independently controlling all four lines, you can join the lines leaving each corner unit and then just move the line left or right instead of reeling two different lines in and out. You still use the corner eye loops, and you use two cables that are X+Y in length. This allows you to pick a point on the ceiling. Then a third actuator and line in the gripper itself could lower itself to the floor.

Probably if you went this way, you'd want to measure each ceiling cable so it is about X+Y length, or otherwise the slack needs to be held somewhere.

This is one less actuator than their system if I understand them, and they are not counting the gripper itself.

I mean, when you really get down to it, either the particles and such operate on very specific rules, and the rules govern how all our brain and body work. Followed to the conclusion, the universe is computable and we can simulate life.

Amodei and Altman are both openly advocating for increased regulation, and I do question their motives, because both of them are running companies with a ton of debt, and facing some very real competition from open models.

What I think they want is for politicians to ensure their companies' survival via some form of regulatory capture; making it illegal to use other models; enforce their twisted version of copyright; etc. Lacking enough political power is existential to them since they run such high costs.

Are they out there amplifying the viewpoint that what they are doing is dangerous and must be regulated? Yes.

Would they do that if it was actually bad for their business? NO - the CEOs specifically would virtually not be allowed to ask for regulation if they thought it was bad for investors for them to do that.

So what we have is AI companies openly saying they are doing dangerous work and must be regulated; and I infer they want that to protect them and not us.

FWIW, I think AI will just about obsolete us all and that is bad for almost everyone, but I still think it is transparently driven by profit and corporate agendas when the top leaders of these companies encourage regulation - they do not expect it to work out badly for them.

In this case, we have a bunch of people who believe something. Some of them get jobs in that field. They notice their belief could be beneficial to their company (and make them more money), and so using corporate resources to amplify this viewpoint is well justified spend to help them achieve their goals.

In my view, there is little difference in the outcome between the two and probably the line is very blurry... do people in the 2nd case sometimes say the quiet part outloud? Do people in the first often believe they are only doing what is right and rational without finances considered?

Often these posts come straight from the top of AI companies with specific policy goals in mind. What good will come from understanding Amodei / Altman's "true" motives anyway?

I don't agree with this at all. I can't even figure out what your position is though - you follow up suggesting I'm the one being egotistical? That's deeply ironic... it feels like you may have missed the point I was making. I don't support going around the universe and blowing up barren planets like Mars either, although I would be in favor of bringing new life to barren worlds. I can easily conceive there are other kinds of intelligent life, both on our planet and off of it; and whether or not humans will ever even meet or know of those species, it is still tragic for them to die off.

Horse are an analogy. When they were more economically useful, there were about 5x the number of them. Now they are basically pets and we get comments like this suggesting the work they do is virtually meaningless.

I did think about changing the rotation speed of the dice before you throw, kind of speed it up and slow down. I first added the shuffling effect if you hold them; kind of a shell game animation. If I improve it more, occasionally giving some dice a swift spin would make it harder to defeat I think.

Like you say, this is intended for people who are not going to cheat each other and just want to have fun, so I won't make it worse to account for it.

I guess it works better on mobile with a swipe. I could change space to hold it a brief moment and throw it harder. Now that I am looking at it, that is probably what you mean.

I think I want it to use physics in the end though, not map an RNG result at the end. You can see the faces and what you get is like a real die. If someone can beat it, maybe that is good for them.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49900760

Points: 4

# Comments: 2