OP buries the lede.

The film is by Nathan Fielder, who specializes in fake situations and fake documentaries.

Well, yes. But not here. I don't think he'd go in and troll the real Elizabeth Holmes when he has the chance to do real journalism.

Admittedly seeing him at first made me think "wow that lady sounds exactly like Holmes". Then I realized it was supposed to be her and thought "wow, they did an amazing job casting her".

Then I realized it was her, at which point it was immediately clear this was a serious endeavor and not something Fielder typically does.

I think not. Mr. Fielder has had ample opportunity to do any kind of journalism he wanted, and he's chosen the "spoof" brand.

Isn't that the point? That it has to be a spoof and the question is, "Who's zoomin' who?," as Aretha Franklin put it?

Journalism, even at the granularity of a single person, is not a monolith. He's allowed to do other forms of journalism. He got famous because of his Gonzo-like show, but that's clearly not the only format he can or is allowed to do.

It's a super ugly website.

Gandhi said you can judge a society by how it treats its animals.

Eventually, we will decide that all uses of animals for entertainment are unethical.

This is another nail in the coffin of these unnecessary actions which aren't helpful to animals.

Outlawing cetacean shows, roadside zoos, and horse and dog racing are other terrific aspects of this trend!

Or anywhere without so many lithium batteries.

There's a lot of dangerous infrastructure in America. This is far from the only road that causes accidents and deaths on the regular because it is in inherently unsafe or was designed for different kinds of traffic than it has now.

The fact that this road was built in the previous century makes it part of that second category.

In general, we seem unwilling to invest in American road infrastructure. I'd be willing to bet that potholes, the unexciting normal kind you don't even notice in a car, cause more loss of life and loss of money than any particular dramatic road.

US invests lavishly in road infrastructure by any measure. The idea that the US underinvests is contrarian to say the least. If it doesn't seem like the infra is any good that's in large part because of the huge Anglosphere infra cost multiplier and the fact that there is so much existing to maintain.

Assuming here that you don't live in the US.

Anglosphere cost multiplier is an interesting way to put it.

Problem is that the Federal Highway Association only spends for new projects, not routine maintenance (please check me on that though).

Therefore cities who need maintenance done will bundle routine maintenance they can't afford with expansion (lane expansion, streamlining). This lets them access federal dollars they wouldn't otherwise get.

Over decades, this has created a lot of infrastructure that isn't financially responsible as stuff has just gotten built and built and built. The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) always grades the overall US as a "C" or worse for maintenance.

Part of the problem is that building things is sexy, maintaining them is harder and not sexy. Lotta money and focus on new stuff, maintenance is a secondary concern.

I would not say that is not completely true. Your state Department of transportation is probably the biggest spender anmong other state agencies. The healthcare Leviathan is only thing that could be bigger. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the surface transportation network in the United States is massive. We also have roads serving mere handfuls of predominantly agricultural users (still critical to food supply).

Building roads is expensive, and they don’t last forever. A good asphalt surface may be service worthy for 20 years. A ton of asphalt outside of California may cost in the ballpark of $150 to install. A 2 inch lift of asphalt will cover not quite 10 sqyd. So you can see how expensive this gets when we’re talking about thousands of miles.

I think it’s worth considering how policies may destroy much of the demand for roadways. Personally, I could imagine a future wear personal private transportation is basically unlawful or artificially expensive.

not all infrastructure should be maintained. I'd personally prefer rail infrastructure prioritized over car roads.

But maintaining current infrastructure in the meantime while we build better things is good too. Let's just not lose the plot on what needs to happen next.

Which is?

I think what needs to happen now (not next) is fix the roads truckers drive on. I'm not one one of them but everything in America depends on them and we're making them drive unsafe roads.

Go out in an RV, big truck, or trailer and you'll see what these guys deal with on top of diesel prices, some of which is tax for road repair!

Maintenance isn't the same discussion as decommissioning or replacement. If you want to talk about rail just say that's what you want to talk about without the setting up the awkward connection.

If they fix the potholes, imagine the damage to the mechanic economy for no longer needing to replace tires/wheels, fix suspensions, etc. The mechanic lobby is never going to let this happen!!

They do fix potholes. However new ones happen all the time so there are always plenty to find with a little working.

At least where I live potholes are the natural result of freeze-thaws cycles.

This article was written to refute that exact, and incorrect, belief.

For most of human history, it was obvious that life was of a higher order than matter, since the latter cannot be coalesced into the former.

An ignorant kind of scientism, narrow in focus, spent the last hundred years trying to rub out that basic truth and replace it with a system run by scientists, none of whom can make life but many of whom are very good at taking it away.

Fair play to you if you're into Intelligent Design or whatever it is you're obliquely alluding to, we're all entitled to hold opinions.

However:

> and replace it with a system run by scientists

is just bogus straw manning.

It's pretty obvious the emergence of life on earth wasn't part of a "system run by scientists", the comment you replied to talked of the very antithesis of hierarchical systems run by entities in the phrase "emergent property of underlying physical laws".

The corollary is that when the product gets this big and this good (it's terrific), someone is going to buy it.

It's a sign that the developers built a product with demand.

Three years is long term in the tech and VC world.

At a $300M sale, the project achieved its goal and it's time to exit.

So Paul thinks LLMs, think?

We can add you to the list of smart folks who have lost their minds over this topic, and all for a failure to understand the basic computer science on which they're built.

I guess if you get too far away from the metal (and too high up in the boardroom), it's easy to lose touch.

What do you think is going on if not “thinking?” Can you elaborate how the basic computer science that underlies these systems refutes it.

Sure. Study any basic text about how a processor functions. Now watch a dog learn a trick. There is no correspondence.

It's fun sci-fi to think that people are machines, too. Descartes started it.

Basic computer science (or anything really) does not yet provide a definition of thinking.

It's outside its purview, which is the domain of voltage high/low and Boolean logic. Those do not imply, require, or provide thinking.

What is thinking?

Noam Chomsky is a good person to ask. He spent his career asking that.

Next they'll tell you they can make life because we're all just an electrochemical soup.

Uh, huh. Sure we are.