They should impoverish their retirees by like 10x in order to avoid having a distribution of retirement results in the 8-12x range? Conservative investments lag even the worst-case equity investment result over any significant, retirement-relevant time range.
All I'm getting at is that EV matters. Putting a bunch of chips on the roulette table has high risk, but negative EV -- it's a terrible investment. Loading up on risk is not inherently EV-positive.
No amount of technology can solve the starvation in those countries. The starvation in those countries aside from physical blockades and wars like in Palestine if not usually due to lack of tech or agriculture. In any case, even if the land is bad, Israel itself is another example of crap land turned fertile by new technologies they were forced to invent during the course of the 40s and ahead by scientists like Bass. Here you want to block the biggest engine of technological and science development that has ever been invented.
The AI companies do what they must to market themselves, there is no reason to think it should be much different from other past mass disruptive technologies (today agriculture is down to just 2% of the population from 60-80% earlier for instance).
And if it solved most labor and jobs, then what? Would you rather block it than try to see how we can transition to a economic and government system that will actually let us enjoy it.
And I doubt we will ever run out of problems, there is always outer space as an endless source of new problems.
Agriculture as a job went from 70% of the population to under 2% in 200 years. Why are you not complaining about agriculture tech causing mass job killings?
Literally every technological advance till now has led to massive abundance and increase of food, and of the carrying capacity of agriculture itself till now. You have to explain why you think now technology will do the opposite of what it has done for millenia continually increasing the amount of and variety of food available worldwide. You have to show how this engine of science and tech research will do the literal opposite of what science has always done to food availability.
Well agriculture was not selling itself with "we will nake humans obsolete, replace all humans and make all people except few richest poor". Agriculture improvements did not came with "hahaha you looser artists you are not needed anymore, all art will be done with AI you loosers".
Agriculture selling point was and is "we will feed you"
I am also really not interested in alternative history. Nor in debate where people who know literally nothing about actual historical events make up fictional past out of imagination and movies and use that as argument.
> You have to explain why you think now technology will do the opposite of what it has done for millenia continually increasing the amount of and variety of food available worldwide
The destruction and desperation for average person is what AI companies sell. It is what THEY claimed will happen.
Did they take food off the table from people initially or didnthey not? Electric lighting certainly must have killer the job of the gas lamp lighter or at least forced him to change. Cars obviously impacted horse drivers.
Electric lighting actually did the inverse; Because of electric lighting, people quickly became overworked, and that's what directly formed to the creation and empowerment of unions.
Yes so why do you feel the newest round of technology won't also end up creating more work and jobs? The people being replaced by electric lighting and motorcars would have found it unimaginable too that it will lead to more jobs instead of killing large sectors of jobs without replacement.
They did not took food off the table from people. They did not all caused mass unemployment and their goal was not to achieve mass unemployment. Which is literally stated goal of AI.
There is no need to argue by imagined history. We have real one.
Are you saying motorcars didn't cause mass unemployment among horse carriage drivers? Or that electric lighting didn't kill the gas lighter's job? Or that agriculture still requires nearly 70% of the population? You are making up completely imaginary histories with zero numbers or examples now. All labor saving tech were implicitly or explicitly sold as a means of reducing requirement on a given number of workers per amount of work. That has always been the point of technology from the industrial revolution forward. But you have special reasons to villainize and call AI companies ultra evil any more than any other technological advance throughout history.
Opinion writers are frequently at odds with actual events and facts. They dont get factchecked as much as news writers - even in the same journal. In fact, they dont get fact checked at all.
But PHP thing was a lot of drama over something that was not super large easy to exploit hole. Just a normal "have to patch it and bye" medium kind issue.
> Just a normal "have to patch it and bye" medium kind issue.
Patching it was the issue, not the hole.
1. The patches had to be unofficially backported to the versions of php that most people were using.
2. Devs had to figure out if the unofficial backports were safe and they weren't just falling into trapped versions
3. Devs had to migrate all of their projects to unofficial versions
4. No one was ready for it to happen because there was no advance notice (someone broke the embargo) for everyone to plan maintenance windows and upgrade at the same time.
People say this vulnerability was "not super large easy to exploit" because of one poorly-informed skeptical blog post that hit the top of HN, but the evidence strongly suggests that post was simply wrong, and we're just going to have to live with the misinformation until it decays.
At this point the play is simply to move the goalposts, suggesting that vulnerabilities don't matter so long as you yourself couldn't easily exploit them, regardless of what well-armed attackers can do with them. That's, obviously, not how software security works.
It's quite difficult to exploit. But so are most vulnerabilities, but attackers have figured out frameworks for exploiting hard vulnerabilities of this type. The proof is in the pudding - "steal my bitcoin" had its bitcoin stolen.
Are there better sources for understanding the scope of impact enabled by PHP2Shell? My impression from a variety of sources is that very few incidents can be clearly attributed to that vulnerability. As opposed the many other ol’ ways PHP applications get exploited.
What a smug reply. Maybe you could just link to what Dan Guido has to say about it that supports your statement and why people should find that credible.
But, like, not wrong. I am kind of smug about this. People desperately wanted this bug not to be real. I don't pretend to know why. But it's clearly real.
I think the post scan curl post did a lot of damage to the perception of real dangers.
Instead of highlighting the exceptional quality of curl, under intense, unprecedented scrutiny, the maintainer chose to dismiss Mythos as a nothingburger. I think this was a huge mistake and a disservice to curl itself.
The goalpost here was an apocalypse, thousands instantly hacked sites and hundreds of exploits flying around within hours. I did not made that goalpost. And reality did not hit that goalpost.
> vulnerabilities don't matter so long as you yourself couldn't easily exploit them, regardless of what well-armed attackers can do with them.
This is moving goalpost. The goalpost was not "yet another vulnerability like the others".
I think that primary thing that wont survive is people writing stuff for public - exactly what was found on blogs, web pages, when institutions and companies gave out.
Since no one will find that, you might as well write for yourself. And if you are wroting for just yourself, you will keep it for yourself or just wont bother.
Oh, people will still write in public. I do. It's the people that wanted credit for what they wrote in public that will stop doing it. But I think everybody else can just keep on doing what they were doing.
reply