Yeah, generally of a feature is vaguely expensive, they will not mandate it.

Where airbags hit the scene, they said that would work, but since it is so expensive you can do automatic seatbelts instead.

We are talking about a few dollars on a 30,000 dollar purchase…

I appreciate the online update/kill switch/repaiarability, lock out concerns, but these systems are surprisingly good for safety

On an early outing with my kid driving, we were going on a freeway next to a long line of cars waiting at an exit. Well suddenly someone pulls right in front of us, in a way that even if it happened to me I think I would have hit it, and certainly the car couldn’t brake in time and my kid swerved instead, a good call but one I’m sure would have left us running into the ditch at the speed we were going and no experience with that maneuver. However it was like a professional driver, managing to dramatically yank the car around the sudden slow car and neatly back in the lane after avoiding.

I was shocked my kid pulled that off with only 10 hours of driving experience, turns out the car had an evasive steering assist. Saved our asses.

Tons of videos about the emergency braking tests that should easily convince anyone of their value to safety.

In my car I haven’t figured out what sets it off, it happens all the the with nothing in the backseat.

I appreciate the intent, but at least in my car the false positive rate is so high I could imagine ignoring it

It’s pretty much a vibe coding issue. What you describe I can recall being advocated forevet, the project manager’s dtram that you model and spec things out enough and perfectly model the world in your test cases, then you are golden. Except the world has never been so convenient and you bank on the programming being reasonably workable by people to compensate.

Problem is people who think they can replace understanding with vibe coding. If you can only vibe code, you will end up with problems you cannot fix and the LLM can’t either. If you can fix the problems, then you are not inclined to toss overly long chunks of LLM stuff because they generate ugly hard to maintain code that tends to violate all sorts of best practices for programming.

Nah, they hated what the guy did still. They may have tossed the VP under the bus to try to mitigate the backlash, but it was still Garza that exposed the mess to the public in the first place, and that’s just way worse for the bottom line than being snobby and racist and bad mouthing your own product.

So they hope attention stays on ousting the VP in the court of public opinion, and handle Garza in more formal channels, and likely win if Garza recorded without informing the other party, particularly making that conversation public.

As someone who has occasional one on one meetings with executives, I’m not surprised. They tend to ramble and talk about whatever they feel like. Admittedly I haven’t met anyone who would say this sort of things, whether because they aren’t thinking it or they are on guard somewhat, but a lot of those conversations go into weird territory, like the executive really wants some friends and treats any one on one meeting as getting with some like minded friend.

The difference is that the government is largely cutting checks to private industry with very little regulation.

Yes. People get healthcare but the private industry just raises prices so long as the blank checks keep coming.

Same problem in higher education, the more money you inject, the more they slurp up with no regulation on how much they can charge.

This all presumes that OpenAI can get there and further is exclusively in a position to get there.

Most experts I’ve seen don’t see a logical connection between LLM and AGI. OpenAI has all their eggs in that basket.

To the extent LLM are useful, OpenAI arguably isn’t even the best at it. Anthropic tends to make it more useful than OpenAI and now Google’s is outperforming it on relatively pointless benchmarks that were the bragging point of OpenAI. They aren’t the best, most useful, or cheapest. The were first, but that first mover advantage hardly matters when you get passed.

Maybe if they were demonstrating advanced robotics control, but other companies are mostly showing that whole OpenAI remains “just a chatbot”, with more useful usage of their services going through third parties that tend to be LLM agnostic, and increasingly I see people select non OpenAI models as their preference.

It is easy for them to have 0 income, and we should fix that. The means by which they can access ‘value’ of their wealth to pay for stuff without actually incurring a taxable event need to get closed. Primarily this seems to be about borrowing against wealth, which should be a taxable event, with an option to eventually get credit for loan repayment to assuage the ‘but but double taxation!’ crowd.

Upvoting for recognizing the double taxation but saying that is addressable.

Sure, you can get a credit later for repayment, suggesting that you paid the tax on other income. In the mean time, it’s effectively a 0% loan to the government between borrowing against the wealth and getting a credit for loan payment.

I think the wealth tax would be hard to get satisfactorily right. Either too little to feel like ‘justice’ or too much and you have people losing controlling interest in a company despite never really wanting it to get valued that much and never wanting to sell it.

Also, I think if you are head of a private company, you have a lot more ‘invisible wealth’ than the head of a public company, so there’s opportunity for a tax dodge through making your company private.

I like the idea of treating leveraging assets to actually have something spendable as income.

Problem is that AI didn’t present as a “genre” and you get AI slop across the gamut.

I started a video because the title seemed like something I was interested in and the thumbnail seemed fine. Then within the first few seconds it was obviously lazy ai slop.

Short of limiting yourself to known acceptable channels. You can’t really stave off the AI slop. Some categories get hit less often, but they are all over the place.

Trump is trying to ride Mamdani’s co

My mind completed that a totally different way.

Actually, it probably would have been better for it to get that far, for a medical professional to actually assess her earlier…

Of course now they generally embalm before a wake… So no one is waking up for their wake…

Making sure they are really dead could be done a couple of ways…

Since embalming happens before a wake, I guess someone has “made sure” they are really dead before the wake even begins…

Fun story, my car had a recall for the brake light coming on randomly. After they replaced the part, then the brake light wouldn’t come on at all. Then they made it so the brake light would only sometimes come on. I said screw it and finally fixed it myself. The pedal pushed down on two different things, one to actually operate the brakes, and a separate little button for the electronic brake indication for the lights and for the cruise control to disengage (the cruise control also stayed active even when hitting the brake pedal).

Anyway, they screwed up setting the electronic button and I had to position it correctly in the little bracket, where it gets pressed if the brake pedal barely moves even if it takes a smidge of actual distance to start the real braking.

Hurray, everyone is off the platform. Honestly, that would be for the best…

Yeah, that graph scale is absurd for comparison… I get it, they want to highlight the ‘trend’ but the scale of the US graph is nothing but a neglible slice of the boottom of the China graph, it’s just impossible to intelligently compare the ‘trends’ in that manner…

Also skeptical of a claim of 0.0% for anyone. It looks to me that, by the criteria of the graph, china has managed to effectively tie the US on this sort of metric, and the US has roughly held it flat for the last 30 years.

As others point out, this particular metric may not be a good one, and depending on how you slice the other metrics, either China or US technically comes out ahead, but broadly a more comparable standard of living.

I guess their point is if you exclude the upper half, China has managed to fare better.

Basically if we torture the numbers either side can get them to say whatever that side wants, by cherry picking criteria or excluding certain portions of the population.

Which is frankly a fantastic outcome for China, where in the past there was no way to make the numbers even close, now things are close enough as to each side being able to point out a way of measuring which makes them look better.