It will have the capacity to eliminate our energy grids.

This would be a sensible course of action, since AI famously doesn’t require any significant source of energy to operate.

This is an incredible read

It really is. Regards to BioMan for finding it: https://awful.systems/post/9389883/12420011

I had some interest in trying out Bevy for some future projects, in no small part due to their anti-slop policy. Guess I won’t bother?

TracingWoodgrains attempted hatchet job against David Gerard

Out in the wild, I’ve actually seen somebody cite that piece earnestly… as an example of how Wikipedia still has problems even if it’s generally a useful source of information.

It’s like praising with faint damnation.

I continue to be amazed by those random university students somehow outwitting all of LessWrong on this matter.

Here’s a helpful link for the reading-averse https://drewdevault.com/weird-guys/#rauch

Once we have superconductors, all computation will immediately switch to relay-based logic

There’s this: “Built for agents: Omarchy’s pipeline moves to DigitalOcean” https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/digitalocean-joins-omacom-foundation

Alongside the infrastructure move, DigitalOcean is joining the Omacom Foundation, the nonprofit that funds Omarchy’s infrastructure and the open source projects it depends on, as a Founding Corporate Patron, and will serve as Omarchy’s agentic compute provider.

So fascism and slop. Name a more iconic couple.

Don’t suppose we could track down how the announcement got any publicity whatsoever…

It would only be moral to take the money then make videos about how ‘AI safety’ is an imaginary distraction from mundane matters of labour rights and finance capitalism.

Turns out the only cause of inequality in the world is that there’s just too much progress. Once the Best GPU has finally been designed, it’ll just keep rolling off the production line, and those charitable manufacturers will gladly distribute them at bargain prices to all the impoverished masses. Who all have a reliable source of energy to devote to churning out slop.

I suppose my error here is taking him at his word that he could support a ‘pause’, when such a statement could very well just be a concession to appear moderate and reasonable.

I don’t even get where Marcus is coming from. He worries that this is a total ban on definitely very useful research, and protests:

I could support the pause; I cannot support a permanent ban on research that might benefit humanity. We may need a temporary pause, maybe even one that lasts for a number of years, until such time as we have much better ideas about regulation and alignment.

So just repeal or amend the total ban once those better ideas are available?

Also that’s a very big MIGHT benefit humanity

‘we want to run our data centers using humanoid [robots]’ because you can run them at higher temperatures

It’s true: these massive climate-controlled facilities are kept so cold, entirely for the benefit of the two people that are walking around at any time.