How long before we get a K-drama where some lonely single falls in love with the hologram?

We’re on our way down to the through of disillusionment. See you on the other side.

She has gone way beyond this. She is actively undermining the entire academic scientific enterprise, even as she makes money popularizing it. It's unclear why she does this. She portrays herself as speaking truth to power, but -- much like certain actors in US public life these days -- is simply doing the easy work of tearing things down, without doing the hard work of building things.

You people sit in front of a computer all day and sometimes make good money out of it. Bullied as kids and fell in love with being in control of something... at least you have something to do! Consider it a blessing over being a roughneck on the oil patch.

Savannah Georgia is another example. Taking a "traveler" when you leave a bar is pretty common.

Ah, the optimism of 1997.

The article is super focused on the hardware side of things, and to a point, that makes sense. Your hardware has to be able to handle what you're simulating.

But it's not the hardware that's the difficult problem. We're nowhere close to hitting the limits of scaling hardware capability, and every time people declare that we are, they're proven wrong in just a few years, and sometimes even in just a few months.

It's the software. And we're so far away from being able to construct anything that could think like a human being that the beginning of it isn't even in sight.

LLMs are fantastic, but they're not a path to building something more intelligent than a human being, "Superintelligence". I would have a negative amount of surprise if LLMs are an evolutionary dead end as far as building superintelligence goes.

Is modeling neuron interactions the only way to achieve it? No idea. But even doing that for the number of neurons in a human brain is currently in fantasy land and most likely will be for at least a few decades, if not longer.

If I had to characterize the current state of things, we're like Leonardo Da Vinci and his aerial screw. We know what a helicopter could be and have ideas about how it could work, but the supporting things required to make it happen are a long, long way off.

This stuff is naive. There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity, and they will fight to preserve it unless you give them an equivalent station in the 'new world'.

But you will still need to sustain ex-workers if they can't get normal jobs, and those same people at the top will not tolerate the taxes required to sustain a basic level of living for much wider population. They already can't tolerate the idea of a much smaller population using food assistance or healthcare from the government.

That leads me to think this is not really a visionary statement, but just a signal that Mark isn't intentionally trying to bring about a new dystopia, and here's his proof. And if a dystopia happens to come about, you can't blame him because he had pure intentions; clearly it was everyone else who just didn't agree with him and it's their fault.

Maybe make Meta a not-for-profit and there might be some credibility here.

If a senile granny with her demented husband can vote, why should be 16 years old barred from voting?