If you get the chance to see it in person, it's an experience. The best way I can describe it is that looking from Isla Blanca beach, it looks like a skyscraper sitting on the pad, and then, the impossible happens -- the skyscraper lifts off into the sky.
They can create demand for "Made in Europe" semiconductors that aren't packaged there, and then they can create demand for "Made in Europe" semiconductors that are packaged there and try to get a packaging plant to open up.
If you have a two step problem, the strategy of "I can't do two things at the same time so I'll just give up", is not a good one.
So I was at target and I just stopped one of the employees and asked them hey does this reflect how your day-to-day job is and they said yes directly.
They have this gun that’s made by I think zebra, and it basically tells them what to do all day every day for every minute and interacting with a human supervisor is by exception
I think Amazon is actually a better example here because warehouse workers have been living this way for I guess decades now with their per item countdown timers that they have to physically you know achieve or they get downgraded or whatever
Something like this only costs $15m because the incentives are crap. You know it if you've driven past any road construction project. 90% of the people at any given time are standing around. You have to pay just as much for a person to stand around as you do for them to be doing useful work.
Fixing the incentives is not easy at all. There are a lot of "good reasons" why this happens. Many of them are failures down the line, but no one at the contractor level pays the price for not mitigating them, so they don't. If a truck doesn't arrive on time, you could find something else useful to do, or you could just stand around waiting. If you/your company is paid by the hour, it's more profitable to stand there.
Your company could also charge the trucking company for arriving late, or the concrete plant for making them wait. This is not customary in the industry though.
Suppose you fixed all of this though. For a given number of construction projects, you'd need way less labor. If profits are a percentage of costs, less labor means less profit. Making things more efficient means the construction company has to lay a bunch of people off and make less profit, so their incentive is to convince the government that inflated costs are reasonable.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Laying people off is painful. However, one thing you might do would be to do more work for the same money, or higher quality work for the same money.
"…90% of the people at any given time are standing around."
Someone needs to write "Road Crew Simulator"—a game where you get to boss workers around and keep them busy rolling out asphalt, stacking traffic cones, etc. I had thought I knew of just one guaranteed customer for the game (my wife) but perhaps there are two!
> You know it if you've driven past any road construction project. 90% of the people at any given time are standing around.
If 90% of the people onsite are unnecessary, a competitor will simply bid for the project without the extra labor and win.
Have you considered the possibility that you don’t understand how road construction works? I don’t fully understand how it works and I am a commercial construction professional.
Ultimately the problem is that Japanese people are not having enough kids. It's a huge emergency. It is recoverable, but it has to be done very soon or it will be much harder. Right now, 5.1% of the population is 25-29, prime childbearing years. If all of those people had 2.1 kids, and so did their descendants, Japan's population would stabilize reasonably well. The problem is that the 0-4 range is only 3.1%. Even if that generation has 2.1 kids, the population will be massively diminished.
If that happens, the majority of Japanese people will be retired, and the cost to provide medical care for them will be astronomical compared to the number of people that can provide that care. It's easy to say "Japan is a rich country, they can afford it." However, medical care for old people is very labor intensive. Even if the old people have "savings", this is just a claim against the labor of young people. If the young people are too worn out from caring for their parents to have their own kids, the country dies out.
The only solution I can think of is to provide massive incentives to have kids. Massive meaning something like "you get $40k per year for every kid in your house under 18", or "you get a free house when you have your first kid, and a bigger one when you have your second."
Maybe this sounds extreme, but the alternative is that young people are taxed at punitive rates in order to provide care for older people. As the situation progresses, younger people will have even less kids because they can't afford them, and eventually they won't even be able to pay for a reasonable living standard for themselves. Older people won't care and will vote themselves excellent benefits, since they would have a good majority in voting. The only option younger people would have would be to leave the country, which only forces the tax rates higher. Eventually something breaks. It's difficult to predict exactly how it would go but it's not pretty.
If Japan is to be saved though, it has to happen in the next 5-10 years or so, and the sooner the better. Once the population pyramid slides up another decade, you'd need the average couple to have 4 kids or so, and the incentives required to make that happen are not affordable, and wouldn't be agreed to democratically when the majority of the population is retired and wants the money for the remainder of their lives rather than paying for kids that would be too young to provide labor to care for them while they're alive.
Has any country really reversed the diminishing fertility rate with industrialization without religious zealotry? I honestly don’t think money is the factor here. Yes it matters but $40k is nothing. That covers maybe a year or two of daycare in the states. It needs to be a cultural change but not sure what would reverse it.
Or we set a max age of the population where you off yourself. It’s the plot of Half a Life in Star Trek TNG
I'm saying 40k per year per kid per year. That's not a magic number, but it's something like where if you have 2-3 kids, one parent doesn't need to work because their income is replaced by a child subsidy. Alternatively, if both parents work, daycare is paid for, along with the other expenses of having a kid. Now, that does mean taxes have to go up a lot. Maybe you don't need such a high number. You could play around with it and see what works.
On the other hand, prospective parents have to believe that the money will keep flowing, or the incentive isn't as strong. In that case, maybe something like giving new parents a house is a better bet because they'd own that regardless of what future governments do.
>It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary.
or collectivist societies. We completely forgotten the old adage: "it takes a village to raise a kid". 3rd world countries still increase in population because everyone chips in to care for everyone's kids, not simply staying within their own house raising their own kid by themselves.
>The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.
This is definitely another piece of the puzzle, one within the levers of government. Shorter work weeks for the same or more pay would alleviate this issue. But that's something the elite will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
In 3rd world countries having children is also a retirement plan because government does not guarantee much for elderly. Not sure if developed countries want to go there though.
We are at the same time experiencing all the challenges and consequences of depleting the planet of resources, a warming climate and shortages everywhere. Why can less people in a natural way not be part of the solution?
You’ll need to kill people off at say 70. Healthcare meds increase dramatically when you get older and older, and that means more people needed to care. When the worker:dependence ratio increases you end up with people emigrating or care reducing.
Other first world countries. The global population overall is still slightly increasing because 3rd world countries have plenty of children.
As for the why: because historically that has always been a solution to lacking specialized talent or simply not having enough hands to perform a massive task. You don't want to pay domestic labor, so bring in foreign labor. This time it's a general problem.
$40k is an average full time age after tax and student loans in the U.K
But we’d rather tax workers to the hilt to pay for wealthy old people. Isla refreshing to see the op mention that “savings” are just a claim on future work. When there’s 10 billionaires who need care and 2 people who can provide it, how much will those carers charge.
The other solution is high immigration. If you can import 18 year olds it’s win win win. At least for old rich people. Keep wages down, no tax money on new generations.
As I said in another comment, the population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. A hundred years ago, the population was 64 million, and that was at the peak of their colonial expansion.
Yes I get it that the demographics pyramid would not be the same as it was in 1930, but this whole narrative that "Japan is dying" is at the very least spread to pull on heartstrings in order to fuel this lines must go UP ALL THE TIME hypercapitalist nonsense.
Why can't a people wax and wane according to the needs of their culture and not the needs of bigwig bank accounts? Does Japan need a convenience store on every block? If every single convenience store disappeared tomorrow, you'd suddenly have a massive workforce able to go to school or care for the elderly, so here I am just yelling at clouds while the average Japanese person is more in line with your way of thinking that being able to buy a sandwich instead of making your own is the "Japan" they want to save.
The problem is that if Japan ends up with a population of 64 million in 2100, that is nothing like the situation 100 years ago. Almost all of those 64 million people will be retired and not creating any economic output, but requiring a lot of care. It's questionable whether the small working age population could even provide that care, much less all of the other things that a functioning society needs.
Now it's certainly possible that AI will eliminate the need for anyone to work. That is a different question though than conventional demographic prediction.
>As I said in another comment, the population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. A hundred years ago, the population was 64 million, and that was at the peak of their colonial expansion.
Japan has a population of 300m. a collapse of 60% of the population in 60 year is indeed a crisis.
> fuel this lines must go UP ALL THE TIME hypercapitalist nonsense.
It's less the population and more the numbers. There were probably a good 30-40m working class Japanese in that 1930's metric, and the retired population was probably in the singular millions.
That model inverted. Based on the stats up chain, we have ~20-30m 21-25 year olds, and 100+ retired Japanese citizens. This isn't a scale to be balanced so much as a building crumpling in on itself. because unfortunately, old people will crush the youth in such a collapse.
>Why can't a people wax and wane according to the needs of their culture and not the needs of bigwig bank accounts?
Because the elite need peasants to server them, if you want a frank answer. Guess who most of the richest people in the economy belong to?
Another reason why this is more of a "I'll take the youth with me" collapse. The rich are greedy.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Few people have the ability/temperament to reason about things that have never happened before. Those that do have a weird psychological profile. Usually you can ignore them. Every once in a while, you can't.
Exactly. The vast majority of people never progress beyond naive extrapolation into the near future, even in the face of clear evidence that their previous extrapolations were wrong.
"Nobody will want to walk around with mobile phones. Who wants to be available any time and everywhere?"
People said similar things about Bluetooth headsets and are saying similar things about AR glasses. And these are very simple in terms of reasoning about how the technology evolves and the probability of adoption by people, yet troves of people get it ridiculously wrong; what they experience every day seems so normal that they can't imagine it ever changing.
Something as transformative and monumental as (potentially) an entirely new and powerful form of intelligence arising is far, far beyond the imagination of most. I don't mean that in that they are fundamentally incapable of it, but that it takes having been exposed to a bunch of counter-intuitive logic and reasoning about how the universe works, which most people just have not been.
It’s interesting that a lot of U.S. law requires intent. If you just give AI your objective without specifying the means, and the AI violates a bunch of laws requiring intent, but neither the AI nor the person can be prosecuted, this is very convenient.
I don't think this true. If I throw a brick out my window and it hurts someone, I can still be held criminially liable, even if I didn't mean to do it.
Do drunk drivers intionally kill people on the road?
Not a lawyer, but the other responder definitely isn’t either.
Whether intent is required is down to how the law is written. For many offenses “strict liability” applies, where intent is not required, they only have to prove you did it, not what your intent was.
DUI is typically a strict liability crime. They don’t need to prove that you intended to drive drunk, only that you did drive drunk.
A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element. The question is intent for what. If somebody drugged you without your knowledge and you were charged with a DUI, you would have a defense--no intent to become intoxicated.
The strict liability means once you choose to become intoxicated, you're liable for driving intoxicated, even if in some other context your intoxication would mean you couldn't form the requisite intent for something, e.g. have sex.
If there's too much distance between the act you intend to do and the strict liability acts that complete the crime, then the crime would be considered unconstitutional.
Criminal law in common law systems emerged from tort law, so there are many parallels, including the notion of strict liability. (Thus the old axiom about crimes being an offense to the king, specifically an injury to the peaceful society he's ostensibly trying to maintain.) But criminal law has a moral dimension that is absent or muted in other areas, so strict liability could never be as expansive as in tort law or regulatory law.
That is just not true. You can be held liable for DUI even if you did not intend to become intoxicated (though this may vary somewhat state-by-state). Speeding is another example - you do not need to intend to go over the speed limit, it just matters that you did it. The only possible exception would be duress or necessity, but those are affirmative defenses, which are separate from the elements of the offense.
As a summary of American criminal jurisprudence I'm willing to stand by what I said. But I'll admit some caveats:
1) Traffic-related laws straddle the boundary between civil/regulatory law and criminal law. Someone losing their driver's license or even paying a penalty for involuntary intoxication would still be consonant with criminal law principles. However, a criminal punishment would be aberrational. (Distinction between a civil penalty and criminal punishment usually turns on whether there's a moral purpose to the sanction. Jail time is usually but not always--cf civil contempt incarceration--considered a criminal punishment.)
2) Background principles notwithstanding, in theory a state could completely dispense with any morality-colored mens rea requirement, just as the UK Parliament could do whatever it wants to. The backstop would be Federal constitutional [substantive] due process guarantees.
2.a) Some quick searching shows that Texas nominally seems to have dispensed with this requirement for DWIs. See e.g. Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) and some discussion at https://www.ncdd.com/top-dui-attorneys-blog/involuntary-into... Without having fully read the case law, though (but some summaries of that and other cases), I suspect there might be some nuance that has allowed this to stand without a full majority accepting that the traditional principles have been completely thrown out. For example, even if someone didn't know they were taking Ambien, the simple act of voluntarily taking any pill without careful examination can be construed as a sufficiently culpable act. Still, it's a pretty big caveat.
2.b) Statutory rape is a classic strict liability crime. But most states will permit a mistake-of-fact defense. Some don't, but even there there's sometimes some nuance and rationalizing going on and the literature is crazy complex. Because this is a "think of the children" situation, most case will just have horrible facts.
3) A few states have nominally dispensed with insanity defenses, though Kansas stands out the most. SCOTUS upheld Kansas' law in Kahler v. Kansas, but in the majority opinion Kagan characterized the Kansas law as not abolishing the insanity defense but rather changing its shape, and she showed that there still remained elements for which a defendant could plea lacked the requisite intent. Also, regarding the Federal constitution acting as backstop, she reiterated that SCOTUS was reticent to establish strict metes & bounds about the general principles of criminal law that states could not stray beyond. Nonetheless, those principles clearly exist.
I had some other points, but now I've forgotten them. Also, minor pedantic point, but like "strict liability crime", some scholars consider "affirmative defense" to be oxymoronic. As a substantive matter there's not a strong distinction. It's a procedural distinction about initial burdens of proof, but in most if not all cases you can interpret an affirmative defense as simply placing a very weak initial burden on the prosecution that is implicitly met.
(Note, I'm not a practicing lawyer but do have a law degree.)
EDIT: Ah, point 4) Intent was a big sticking point in the Obamacare penalty case, Sebelius. Both the dissent and Roberts (the swing vote) reiterated that you couldn't have a penalty or punishment for doing nothing. (IIRC some of the majority opinions also echoed this.) That is, even in a civil context there has some to be some voluntary act, however remote, that puts someone in a position to be subject to legal liability. But as Roberts pointed out, the taxing power is the great exception, where you can be required to do something merely for existing, and thus penalized for not doing nothing properly. (And Roberts was the critical swing vote.)
EDIT EDIT: Also see, "Solving General and Specific Intent: A Mapping on the MPC and Applications to the Categorical Approach", https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4754469 In describing the distinctions between general and specific intent in criminal law, it also delves into the definitions of strict criminal liability (which can be construed as either very similar or identical to general intent crimes), and notes that SCOTUS generally inserts an implicit mens rea requirement when considering strict liability criminal statutes.
> A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element.
This is wrong.
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
Fairly certain that the entire point of strict liability is that mens rea is not required for certain crimes. As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.
The way we use mens rea in our legal system is more like "mind of the criminal," not outright literal intent.
Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind.
I find it to be a reasonable take. If you're accidentally going 100 in a 70 (which is a misdemeanor in california), you're not being a careful enough driver, and we deem that lack of care criminal.
Strict liability literally is crimes that don't require a guilty mind.
That's different (sometimes) when, for example, you're found guilty of criminal negligence leading to someone being injured.
Prosecutors don't have to demonstrate that you intended for someone to get hurt for that, your mens rea is that you should have perceived the danger of what you were doing but didn't.
edit: reading your other comments in this thread, maybe I missed your point, in which case, whoosh.
> As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.
IANAL but from what I've looked up in the last there's at least willfulness that matters for these things. For example if you could prove that happened because your car accelerator pedal broke and you had no opportunity to react, I'm pretty sure you would not be guilty, strict liability or not.
Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, in that case. Drunk driving is common enough that prosecutors will argue that getting drunk in a situation where you have to drive is intent. Get OpenAI convicted of unintentional CFAA first, then say that the negligence qualifies as intent, I suppose.
Whether it’s intentional requires a legal investigation to establish. Since when is “hey we didn’t mean it!” in a corporate press release enough to establish lack of intent in a criminal matter?
There are different levels of intent. Take murder, for example. A premeditated murder - you sat down, in a completely calm state, and made an affirmative decision to kill a specific person, and then you went out and did it - is the highest class of murder you can commit. If you go out generally looking to be violent in a way that kills people, and you kill someone, that's still murder, but it's a step down.
But even if you didn't deliberately intend for something bad to happen, you may have been reckless. For example, you might decide to drive 90 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone. You could have a completely pure heart, but you are acting without regard for the safety of others, so you're reckless. That is enough for certain crimes and for civil liability in nearly all cases.
Then there's negligence, where you're not taking reasonable care to avoid harm to others. Negligence usually isn't enough to support criminal liability - especially for felonies - but it is enough to win a civil lawsuit over most things.
And then, as another commenter noted, there is strict liability, where there are certain things you are just not allowed to do no matter how careful you are about them or how pure your intentions are.
For what it's worth, this is not totally uncharted territory for the law. AI agents are brand new, yes, but agency relationships have been recognized by the law for centuries. Generally speaking, if someone acts negligently while they are carrying out a task at your direction, you can be held responsible. Obviously this is fact-dependent, but I don't see any reason why it would be different if the agent is made of silicon rather than carbon. It holds true, with various nuances, even for less-than-human instrumentalities like a pet or an otherwise-lawful weapon.
>It’s interesting that a lot of U.S. law requires intent.
mens rea and the shift from responsibility to moral guilt is genuinely one of the stupidest legal innovations anyone has ever come up with, it's like affirmative action for imbeciles, in particular in a world of autonomous machines.
"sorry my self driving car ran you over on the way home, didn't think it could happen, sorry it did though"
I think this is a genuine reason to be bullish on the legal traditions like Nordic tort law or East Asian collective responsibility when it comes to adoption of these technologies.
Weren't we talking about criminal liability, though? And ‘tort’ — in addition to sounding like something you'd rather eat during a kaffepaus with those Nordic buddies of yours — is so common-law(ish) that if asking for trouble were a crime, using it in dialogue with those Nordic lawyers could well be deemed as intentional under most current local varities of criminal law theory up there, perhaps merely because you surely must've considered that consequence "quite probable", at minimum, or due to your indifference toward the same (or some combination of these) ;)
If you’re using it, you should plan to migrate off ASAP. I’ve been a long time user of Harvest, and after Bending Spoons acquired it, they increased our pricing by 800%.
My Harvest renewal was going to be a 1,400% increase. I just cancelled the service yesterday after 20 years. While I was clicking through the "Yes, I am sure" buttons, it got down to a mere 300% increase. I wouldn't pay that purely on principle.
I'll sort of miss Harvest, but I'm acclimating myself to the idea of just writing my own timesheet software.
You’re just a bunch of molecules following the laws of physics. It’s all just physics and chemistry, and those are well understood. Now explain the causes of World War I using chemistry and physics. Simple, right?
It isn't hard to program a gpt. You can do it in a weekend with a few hundred lines of python. The code is pretty simple. The math is not particularly high level.
The complexity and scale with LLMs come from the amount of training data used, not some kind of black magic in the programming.
> It’s all just physics and chemistry, and those are well understood.
Not really. We cannot model physics and chemistry to a level which allows us to accurately predict a humans action (even a tiny time-step into the future)
This is vastly different to an LLM, where the model is the model (for a lack of better phrasing).
We can model physics and chemistry pretty well, just not beyond small scales, because the computational effort blows up.
You could just as easily say that if you can write a python interpreter that you can understand every program written in python. Ok, now what if the program is two terabytes?
A frontier LLM is nothing but a 2 terabyte program written in a weird programming language. Just because you can understand the interpreter does not mean you understand the program in a meaningful way.
To be fair, we can't model human language well enough to accurately predict what an actual human will say either. Our ability to accurately model physics is similar to our ability to accurately model human language. And we make immense use of both kinds of model, despite their flaws, inaccuracies, and inability to ever be perfect.
There are different strategies.
One is to have cheap dry food plus some canned food in 5 gallon buckets. If you buy dry food like beans, rice, and pasta, you can get them from
Walmart/Costco for about $1 a pound. This type of food will last a number of years, more if you put them in Mylar bags with oxygen absorbers. You need roughly 1 pound of food per person per day, and you can fit about 30 lbs of food in a 5 gallon bucket. For a family of four, you’ll need about 5 buckets for 30 days if you want to put in some canned food and things like spices etc so it’s palatable. A lot of people have some out of the way corner they can put 5 buckets.
Of course you’ll need a way to cook the dry food. The most sustainable way I know of is a small portable solar system and an instant pot. The instant pot is very energy efficient so you don’t need a very big solar system depending on where you live. If you store flour, you can also get a bread maker, which is pretty efficient.
The reason I like this strategy is that it’s cheap, and you don’t have to think about it very often. You can just trash the food after some number of years. You also don’t have to eat food close to its expiration date normally.
The only hiccup is fat. Cooking oil goes rancid, so you probably want to replace that every year or so, but canola/soybean oil is very cheap.
Of course none of this is very healthy, so you’ll want to include some vitamins…
reply