If you think that younger people have new ideas and are more open-minded and drive progress, why do you think that isn't a product of youth itself rather than experience? If so, then rejuvenating old people would make them more open minded and open to progress as well.
I think you've invented a problem we don't even know exists yet.
> Even if at 90 I had a body of a 20 year old, I would still have the mind of 90 year old. With all the experience, all the mistakes and presuppositions and biases.
I think you're underestimating how many of your thoughts, inclinations, moods and attitude are driven by the body (hormones, energy, etc). The mind is not separate from the body, they are one system. If you rejuvenate the body, the mind is also changed. I agree neuroplasticity is something that needs care as well, but it's simply not the case that it's a separate thing.
This is definitely not true. Whether you are looking at medieval societies, hunter gatherer societies, or established modern societies, there are clear examples where people had more leisure time.
In the simplest possible case, back in the 1950s, most households had one paid worker. Today, most households have two paid workers. The per worker number of hours remained flat, but the per adult number of hours worked skyrocketed.
Pre agricultural societies typically worked less.
Medieval peasants worked long days, but it was highly seasonal, and was limited by light. They worked ~1500 hours a year, and put another 5-800 hours into domestic work. Modern Americans will be very familiar with about 1800 hours of labor a year, plus 5-600 hours domestic labor. Plus significantly more errands and transit stacking on a few hundred hours a year. Most Americans push close to 2600 hours a year. But it can go much higher if you factor in childcare (largely kids in medieval times were put to work).
So, your claim of more leisure time is definitely incorrect.
We definitely have better leisure time. And our social safety nets are better (though declining as of late). Quality of life is higher for sure. I'm solely objecting to the claim we have more leisure time.
> In the simplest possible case, back in the 1950s, most households had one paid worker.
In 1950s, most households were in subsistence agriculture, where both spouses worked more or less around the clock. On in a couple wealthiest countries of the world, where minority of population lived, the situation was different.
It could also be said that during the 1950's, in a couple of the wealthiest countries in the world, one spouse worked more or less around the clock and the other worked for about 8 hours...
I agree with you. Household labor IS labor. However in the world where both spouses moved to working for a wage, those 8 hours of housework do not disappear. They still need to get done, they just come from both spouses leisure time now.
It's not 8 hours of housework. Dishwashers, robovacs, laundry machines, and fridges all reduce the house labour load. I don't think people appreciate how much labour reduction has happened. Getting food for the day's meals was a daily thing, now you can go weeks, even months without having to get more food thanks to refrigeration.
What's the argument that he was duped into doing it? He has plenty of incentive to want to sell more GPUs and broaden his customer base as much as possible, there's no evidence that sleeping with some Chinese lady that may or may not be a spy has anything to do with it.
I think AI and spread of technology both suppresses and supercharges crowdsourcing inclinations. Once AI is better than the best researchers, who would manually maintain a Wikipedia? There might still be random manual human audits, but something like Grokipedia seems inevitable.
I think this will be the case for other things too. OpenStreetMaps won't need as many contributors as more sensors come online, eg. sensors and footage from hobby drones and people's phones augment how much information a single person can enter about a city.
The power of these tools is their governance structure not the means in which articles are edited. This is why musks Wikipedia clone will not amount to much of anything besides being a lazy attempt at making sloppified Wikipedia articles with a right wing bent.
> The power of these tools is their governance structure not the means in which articles are edited.
The power of any tool is its reliability to produce a useful result. Governance structure is a human construct intended to ensure reliability of human social interactions to produce useful results, but AI does not necessarily need human constructs to ensure the same or better outcomes.
> by its nature it doesn’t have a “vision” of how the whole system fits together
I think a harness for building hierarchical summaries with tooling for expanding and searching history is what's missing for this. We're getting there with Recursive Language Models and continuous compaction systems like the one NVidia just published:
This stokes my suspicion that effective LLM input for software development will ultimately resemble more of a higher level programming language than the natural language in common use today, and that the design of such languages and related tooling will play at least as large a role as the models themselves.
It seems straightforward to present the tradeoff in a formulation that statisticians can understand, eg. the expected value of an 80% correct solution that ships now is higher than a 100% correct solution that will take 3 months. The opportunity cost of the extra care often only really pays off for security-sensitive code, like crypto, where the cost of failure is potentially catastrophic.
That’s a legitimate and sensible opinion to have. But FYI I wasn’t inventing my hyperbolic retelling about bots-protecting-from-bots. See paragraph “Jana says actually exploiting the bug requires carefully working out a way to jump to a specific point in the memory for a particular program running on the server”.
It is crazy how readily people believe wild accusations with little credible evidence though. Not addressed at you specifically, just this whole subthread is wild.
I think you've invented a problem we don't even know exists yet.
reply