FaceDeer

Building a thing is very simple, generally speaking. There’s a stream of uniform parts that come into the factory, each exactly what’s needed, and they are put together in a precisely designed routine. It can be trained for quickly and done with minimal skill, by people who live in a low-wage country.

Repair, on the other hand, is very complicated. You need to deal with all the unknowns of figuring out what’s wrong, you need to find the replacement parts from scratch (if they’re even available), and the steps required to replace bits are made up as you go. You might need to desolder connections or remove rivets that were never meant to be removed. Lots more work.

Frankly, I’m not sure it should be encouraged in all cases. Prices really do reflect the value of things in a lot of cases; it may indeed be better to recycle an old broken item and buy a new one to replace it.

They’re the ones who are putting the open-source base models out in the first place. If I write a program myself and release it as open source, I have every right to subsequently release a closed-source version. But I can’t rescind the license on the version I released previously (any open source license with a clause allowing that should be treated with immense suspicion) so anyone else can keep building on that version if they want.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” is actually a perfectly cromulent word to be using for stuff like LLMs. This is one of those rare situations where a technical term of art is being used in pop culture in the correct way.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” is an umbrella term for a wide range of algorithms and techniques that has been in use by the scientific and engineering communities for over half a century. The term was brought into use by the Dartmouth workshop in 1956.

Frankly, whatever insanity it takes to peel MAGA away from Trump is fine by me at this point.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess?

Ask them why God wants to cover up the Epstein files.

Perhaps in absolute terms.

We don’t know if this is the case

Right. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

Quite possibly. Not all breaches of contract are a result of corruption, but some could be, sure.

But that’s not my point. My point is that this isn’t relevant to SpaceX investing its money in some other company. It’s SpaceX money, not “government” money. They can waste it on stupid hitlerbots if they want to.

At that point the problem then isn’t “SpaceX is investing in Grok AI”, it’s “SpaceX is violating its contract with NASA by not doing the work it’s been paid to do.”

That would indeed be a problem, if true. But it’s a completely different problem.

Most roadwork contractors are spending most of the money doing job and paying employees, not funneling it to an neonazi AI.

Sure, and that’s their choice. It’s their money to invest, be they good investments or bad ones.

I’m not saying that funnelling money into xAI is a good idea. I happen to think it’s a terrible idea, I would much rather that SpaceX not do that. But it’s not corruption.

SpaceX has taken a ton of money from taxpayers, (at the expense of NASA,) but hasn’t been making good progress on the Artemis program, for example.

It’s got a milestone-based contract with NASA for Artemis. It’s paid to achieve milestones. So if it hasn’t been making good progress it isn’t getting paid.

If you think the contract could be better written then maybe that’s on NASA to do a better job negotiating. It has nothing to do with Grok one way or the other.

SpaceX is a private company, once it has been paid money that money is SpaceX’s and is not taxpayer money any more. It’s been spent. If the government hired a contractor to build a road, paid them to do so, and then the contractor took the money they’d been paid and invested it in some other company that the contractor owned, is that “corruption?”

Insert standard disclaimer here; Elon Musk is a terrible person and he’s made a lot of terrible decisions, etc. and so forth. It’s not going to stop me from being called a bootlicker, not sure why I bother inserting it.

Not home users, but small businesses could. It can ensure total information security.

My main recordings folder is 175 GB, for a little over ten years worth of recordings. That’s not really all that much - consider how much a terabyte hard drive costs these days, it’s a trivial expense. Even when you include the various backups I keep (definitely don’t want a crash to take all that out).

My GPU’s reasonably hefty, an RTX 4090 with 24GB of VRAM. But AI is a rapidly changing technology right now so who knows what the next six months will bring. Someone might come out with an awesome lightweight model, someone might announce they’re going to be selling a cheap AI-specific card. My view has always been “save the data now because you can’t save it later if you didn’t save it now. You can process it any time.”

They do have guards on the sides, so it’s not completely out in the open.

Hopefully politics won’t get involved in the final report like it did in the EgyptAir case.

Not that often, but my search tools aren’t very refined yet so it’s probably a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. The technology is advancing rapidly right now so I’m not putting a whole lot of effort into polish yet, since in six months some dramatic new tool might come out that invalidates everything I did so far. Like that potential WhisperX switch.

Most recently, I remember a situation where I didn’t remember the name of some NPCs from a roleplaying game that were only in one or two adventures. I did a little searching and found them in a transcript from 2017. That was fun.

Or someone was lying.

A suicide like this has happened before. It even involved the fuel being shut off.

hanlon’s razor and all that

The fuel switches have been very carefully designed to take “stupidity” out of the equation.

It’s going to be hard to conclude for sure that this was suicide without some form of note or other evidence we don’t have yet, but really, at some point the effort it takes to come up with alternatives is going to start looking silly.

so it doesn’t appear one was trying to force it off or anything.

I don’t think it indicates that given how the flight was already doomed at that point. The damage was done.

You asked:

Everyone likes to believe they’re thinking independently. That they’ve arrived at their beliefs through logic, self-honesty, and some kind of epistemic discipline. But here’s the problem - that belief itself is suspiciously comforting. So how can you tell it’s true? […] I’m asking: what’s your actual evidence that you think the way you think you do? Not in terms of the content of your beliefs, but the process behind them. What makes you confident you’re reasoning - not just rationalizing?

And I’m answering that. You literally asked for “actual evidence,” and I gave links to the specific research I’m referencing.

I’m not here to argue with you over the meaning of the word “consciousness” when you didn’t even ask about that in your question in the first place. If you think I’m talking about something other than consciousness go ahead and tell me what other word for it suits you.