Surely there are enough experts that think there's a risk that at least considering corrective action will not retrospectively look silly? (Except perhaps with hindsight bias.)

They may well be wrong, but I'm not sure you can dismiss them so easily.

And the fact it is a prisoner dilemma problem doesn't mean it's unsolvable, sure it makes it hard, but we have made _some_ progress on climate change and that's a prisoner dilemma problem.

appeal to authority fallacy. imagine what galileo thought of the infallible experts of his time, if you consider what your actually saying the existence of concerned experts being evidence of a real threat is kind of wild argument to make

To be fair, all of these 4 figures have warned of the danger of AI since before most people thought GPT3 level intelligence was possible.

I can believe they have economic incentives too. Although, if they do succeed in regulating themselves, won't that do more damage to their aggressive funding requirements? It will guarantee the delay (and possible banning) of the promised AGI that justifies the valuations.

> Although, if they do succeed in regulating themselves, won't that do more damage to their aggressive funding requirements? It will guarantee the delay (and possible banning) of the promised AGI that justifies the valuations.

If their statement is to be believed and they truly slow down, that means they are afraid of something. Otherwise some of them would just betray the rest.

If that is the case, then... why? what are they afraid of?

I would wager that failure, having their companies go bankrupt might be it.

How that would happen, I have no clue... I would assume interest rates raised because we're out of options dealing with inflation would hit their ability to raise money and once that happens they're in trouble...

> what are they afraid of?

That AI will disempower humans.

This looks really nice! I'm interested in how the CI works though. One thing that annoys me about existing CI is that it's difficult to run locally and relatedly, config files don't work cross platform.

I'd love a CI platform that just used a super thin docker + script driver. Rather than platform specific YAML files that define steps.

The third hole is _offset_ by 2, but if you ask a carpenter to add number labels to your pigeonholes, they are going to start at 1.

Indexes start at 1, offsets start at 0.

Technically they explicitly said “how do I get the”

The problem is that we call the things in square brackets indexes, when we should probably call them offsets

I don't agree at all with your last paragraph. MATLAB and Julia are lovely for numerics, maths is terse and looks like maths! Mojo is hobbled by choosing Python style syntax, which does not lend itself well to maths.

WRT the type system, I agree MATLAB is a mess but Julia's multiple dispatch feels more like maths than any other language I've tried.

I coded Matlab in uni, never got it. And had to look Julia code. I have to learn it to read. I am more SEng rather then Sci or Quant. And on compile time types. So for me Julia is foreign and forces me to look both Python and Julia.

What problems do you run into for maths with Python? For linear algebra and ML with Jax/Numpy I find it quite readable.

I think problems is too strong a word, it's just how the syntax looks. And of course it's far better than say C++. But specifically, the lack of native vectors/matrices and very few infix operators (e.g dot product, and matrix multiplication with @ is clunky). Explicit but generic broadcasting using `.` also helps.

The way that types interact with methods _feels_ like maths. I.e. you have a method made up of mathematical operators, if you swap out an input, it typically does the natural and correct thing.

But Etsy also has these ads, and I find them even harder to identify than on Amazon

In the Dictator's Handbook the authors argued that FIFA and IOC function similar to autocratic dictatorships because there is a small group of people who are essential to power. Therefore it is rational to buy them rather than do the right thing by the fans (who have very little power). As cold as the reasoning is, the explanation stuck with me.

Their suggestion is to open up the power structure, e.g. to all past players/Olympians.

> Therefore it is rational to buy them rather than do the right thing by the fans (who have very little power)

The problem withthis is that FIFA/IOC _rely_ on the athletes, players and countries, but none of those make any money so they _can't_ be bought. The prestige and honor is the reason to compete in the world cup/olympics, and money won't change/fix that. See LIV golf for what happens when you try it.

FIA is getting there as well.

The FIA aren’t as bad (although I might be biased as an F1 fan). They’re certainly really really terrible at optics but at least everyone involved in that is making money out of it and aren’t under the illusion that they’re doing it for the clout.