- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.zip
You must log in or # to comment.
“I don’t think we should belittle 0.5% in 10 years. That’s better than zero,” study author and Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu said at the time.
Uhhhhhhhhhh, but if that .5% is at the cost of destroying the planet then yeah? Like the numbers do matter. Instead imagine it like you’re designing a death machine to kill your enemies, “ah this death machine increases our killing rate by .5% so we can kill ~105 people per strike. But every machine we make kills 100 of our own people. It’s pointless and stupid. What a dumb fucking metric.
Tbf it’s more like first machine we make kills 1000 of our own people, every addition or improvement to it kills 100 too, and also every time we use the machine we lose 10 people.
But if we can get AGI through a method called “this is not how you get AGI,” it may get 11 of the enemy people and not 5!!!
.5% of 100 is 0.5, not 5. You’re overestimating by ten times more than
They were all made up numbers. And I didn’t say that the .5% was of the 100. It was just a number of people dying for the slightly larger number of people killed. Imagine I said 79 people die but now we can kill 105 people per strike. They were unrelated numbers.
Why do they care about those hundred? Thats just potential resistance being purged. They wrre gonnadie antway sooner or later.