Docker Engine (the "CLI") only works on Linux. "Desktop" is supposed to offer a unified experience across platforms, it offers a GUI, ships Docker Engine inside a virtual machine so that it works on Windows and MacOS, and tries to make the VM as transparent/invisible as possible (with varying success) with filesystem mounts and network configuration.
Large companies are often very bad at organizing work, to the tune of increasing the cost of everything by a large multiple over what you'd think it should be. Most of that cost wouldn't be productive developer time.
That's a fallacy. You don't have any evidence to support the claim that this system of age verification is popular and more importantly, whether it would remain popular if people had a full understanding of how it worked and how it can be abused.
It might be popular to have age verification conceptually and only as long as it's only used "as advertised", which is not the same thing.
This is one of the biggest issues of democracy. As long as your propaganda machine is strong enough (and anti-privacy propaganda is one of the strongest) you can pass just about anything and pretend that society put on the shackles of surveillance and coercive control voluntarily.
People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.
> The problem is that the owners of these disruptive technologies must be convinced to do something that does not come naturally to them: share. Taxes in the US amount to less than 26% of GDP, 8 percentage points less than the OECD average. Capital taxation amounts to just over 2% of GDP. These numbers will have to go much higher, since people will no longer have wages to live on and will rely more heavily on government largesse.
The tone of this article is really frustrating, the author is seemingly living in a self-imposed box in which capital has an inalienable right to rule the world. "owners must be convinced to share" - No sir, they're not kings, nor were they elected into any position, and we don't have to "convince" them of anything.
We need to have a thorough discussion about what a future without human labor should look like, and whether we really want to live in a dystopia when the only thing preventing us from living in a utopia is the ego of a few rich assholes.
One way or another they will lose their kingdoms because they don't actually have an inalienable right to control the world's resources. They only had these ownership rights because they were [thought to be] good for society as a whole. In a robotic AI future that's no longer the case and those rights will no longer exist.
The only question is whether this transition will be peaceful or extremely violent.
The thing is, in our current legal system, property rights are fairly fundamental; they own certain things, and that gives them a legal right to control it. And the money they derive from that has become more and more influential in our politics, to the point where they can influence a minority share of voters who have outsized voting rights, while also suppressing the votes of other voters, to achieve minority rule.
Without a vast reshaping of our sense of property rights, taxation, and redistribution, it's hard to see how this would change. And it's becoming increasingly hard to see who that vast reshaping could happen via peaceful, civil means.
> the author is seemingly living in a self-imposed box in which capital has an inalienable right to rule the world. "owners must be convinced to share" - No sir, they're not kings, nor were they elected into any position, and we don't have to "convince" them of anything.
That box was something that humans imposed on themselves on the scale of a civilization. At this point, I agree with the author's view because I can't see how it can ever change. Every little additional bit of the scales tipping in their favor means an exponential amount of additional effort that will be needed to undo the imbalance.
By the time society wants to talk about transitioning to a different model (if they ever want to talk about it - remember, humans are shockingly vulnerable to informational warfare and many opinions can be changed with the tweak of an algorithm), the amount of power will be more imbalanced than it likely has ever been in history. If this future comes to pass, they'll be 10x as powerful by that point. And they will have effectively endless amounts of money and power to buy themselves the best armies, automated defenses, production facilities, employees, bunkers, drones, whatever, to ensure their safety. In this worst-case scenario where demand for human labor is a shadow of what it is today, how is this in any way winnable? They could take whomever they need and clock out, automatically overseeing the rest to ensure they won't have anyone threatening them ever again.
> do you know what "Mechanistic Interpretability Researcher" means? Because that would be a fairly bold statement if you were aware of that.
The mere existence of a research field is not proof of anything except "some people are interested in this". Its certainly doesn't imply that anyone truly understands how LLMs process information, "think", or "reason".
As with all research, people have questions, ideas, theories and some of them will be right but most of them are bound to be wrong.
That's a lame typical anti-intellectual argument. You might as well as say all of physics is worthless because nobody truly understands gravity.
Notice I didn't use vague terms like "think" or "reason" and instead used specific terms like "feature/circuit internal representation". You're trying to make a false equivalence of "the hard problem of gravity/reasoning/etc is not solved ... so therefore nobody understands anything" and that's obviously a false leap of logic if you've talked to any physicist or ML researcher or whatever.
That type of response is more typical GED holder who wants to feel intellectually superior so they pull out a "well you don't know anything either" to a scientist.
That's fake epistemic humility, akin to a religious nutcase proclaiming "evolution is just a theory". In fact, he's using the exact same arguments.
I'm not impressed. I've seen this before, from "biology is actually fake" or "the covid vaccine is fake, the FDA is using an 'emergency authorization' which means it's made up", or plenty of other examples. That's not a substantive objection, that's a thought-terminating cliche which is designed to dismiss any merits in the moment.
Imagine if someone in 1945 said "nuclear bombs cannot be real, even if the USA just dropped a nuke on Hiroshima, because it's just theory and it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. The Manhattan project is burning a lot of money". That would be hilarious. And yet if someone identifies an actual neuron or feature in a ML model that activates upon recognition of a software bug- WHICH IS LITERALLY WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IF A MODEL HAS AN INTERNAL REPRESENTATION OF SUCH A THING- it gets dismissed. If such an obvious signal is dismissed, what is even the end goal?
> (d) “Three-dimensional printer” means a computer-aided manufacturing device capable of producing a three-dimensional object from a three-dimensional digital model through an additive manufacturing process that involves the layering of two-dimensional cross sections formed of a resin or similar material that are fused together to form a three-dimensional object.
I expect someone to get around this by modifying the slicing software to use a different algorithm that doesn't rely strictly on layering 2D cross sections.
> I expect someone to get around this by modifying the slicing software to use a different algorithm that doesn't rely strictly on layering 2D cross sections.
reply