Readit NewsSure. One of which would be broadly granting access to it.
Like, if a country tried to restrict such technology to its leaders, you could probably trigger regime change by simply promising to share the technology in the event of deposement. Every party member who barely missed the cut would become your revolutionary.
What makes the current lifespan any more correct than 2x or 3x, or 0.5x of a century or two ago? Given that life expectancy was much shorter a century ago, should we start randomly executing people to keep "the uber-wealthy and powerful" from living too long? That would probably have kept "the current American president" from being in power.
Or put differently: it’s a request, given limited resources let’s expend effort on a fairer society, not one with longer lived people.
Where I live, if an engineer signs off on a bridge design and the bridge personally collapses, they are personally liable for harm done to folks on the bridge. As far as I’m aware software engineering does not have something like that.
edit: I don’t have personal experience around spending limits but I vaguely recall them being useful for folks who want to set up AWS resources and swing for the fences, in startups without thinking too deeply about the infra. Again this isn’t a failure mode unique to LLMs although I can appreciate it not mapping perfectly to your scenario above
edit #2: fwict the LLM specific context of your scenario above is: providing examples, setting up API access somehow (eg maybe invoking a CLI?). The rest to me seems like good old software engineering
It’s both too slanted to be journalism, but not original enough to be analysis.
> That’s exactly what it means to hit a wall, and exactly the particular set of obstacles I described in my most notorious (and prescient) paper, in 2022. Real progress on some dimensions, but stuck in place on others.
The author includes their personal experience — recommend reading to the end.
To dig up the lede: LLMs are proving useful in some instances, consider staying abreast of developments here to find ways to do a better job as time goes by. The exact nature of “better job” and the timeframe along which that reveals itself are left as exercises for the reader
Renewables (especially wind) are now just about the cheapest way to generate electricity, and new battery technologies do much to help with their intermittency, so where’s the problem?
(Plus, the ‘ideology’ in question would seem to be: it’s bad to fry the planet, and also bad to run even a small risk of radioactively contaminating one’s landmass, and IMHO neither of these positions deserves to be called an ideology).