I was assuming this discussion was about adults, not children. Teenagers have always found petty reasons to reject others, but they usually grow up and learn better. This seems no different, so that part doesn't concern me much. If adults are doing it, though, that's entirely different.
Pretty much. Peer pressure is an insanely powerful thing when you're young and trying to fit in and Apple knows teens aren't gonna die on the "stick to an Android to stick it to them" hill.
There’s nothing stopping any LLM-backed chatbot from using plugins; the ReAct pattern discussed recently on HN is a general pattern for incorporating them.
The main limits are that unless they are integral and trained-in (which is less flexible), each takes space in the prompt, and in any case the interaction also takes token space, all of which reduces the token space available to the main conversation.
My experience with Bard is it probably isn't smart enough to figure out on its own how to use these. Google would probably have to do special finetuning/hardcoding for the plugins that they want to work.
It's the same mechanism as Morning Pages - write exactly 3 pages right when you wake up, whatever is on your mind. It's tremendously helpful to move you past whatever you're stuck on in life.
You can write "I don't want to be writing this" over and over if you like. But it turns out that you usually have good things to say.
There is a strong Taiwanese identity among younger people, and that's one of the reasons why the DPP is so popular right now. Older generations and KMT supporters may favor reunification, but that's a sentiment fading away.
So, no, I don't think Taiwanese would agree to become Chinese.
Obviously they would. If China was democratic they would probably elect a more repressive and economically left wing government. At least that's until the private sector buys enough political influence.
Posting like this is a bannable offense on HN. You can't attack another user like this, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29739415 for a longer explanation.
I hope you are not seriously thinking true propagandists are recruited out in the open via HN comments. Are you seriously paranoid and naive at the same time?
With smartphones, the super rich so not have the incentive to block everyone else from having them. Extreme pongevity is a whole different deal: those at the top do not want to be replaced, and what better way to do that by making it harder to get on their level?
Also, take inheritance. Business shark accumulates a fortune, then leaves it to his less competent children, who waste it, giving others a chance. Imagine a world where sharks do not naturally die from old age and keep their fortunes in best shape over centuries?
How you could stop the greed of someone wanting to sell those treatments to the mass market? I imagine Mark Cubin (or any other "shark" billionaire) would fucking love to be the first trillionaire or quadrillionaire by being the person who made accessible the treatments for aging. Cancer alone: the ego-boost and vast wealth for the person whose company/research helped "cure cancer" (hell, even just 1 type of cancer). these "sharks" would "chomp" at the opportunity I imagine.
If you are a member of an inner circle of an immortal oligarchy that already controls the most important markets, selling such treatments would effectively erode your already enormous advantage and fuel the would be competitors.
Many (most?) of those original fortunes were amassed by giving large numbers of people small amounts of something they’d rather have than money. It’s not only that they’d keep their fortunes in shape (what you’re arguing is a negative), but that they’d have a longer period of time to create value (and capture some of it) in the world.
How is that going to work though? We're likely way past the carrying capacity of the whole planet-wide mesh of habitats, even if we make some huge technological leaps to reduce our adverse impact on the biosphere – right now, the combined H. sapiens biomass is about ten times that of all other non-livestock mammals combined, and just the space we take up is driving lots of other species to extinction. Cure aging and this will grow ad infinitum and likely outpace anything we can do to lessen this. I don't see people stop having children, most people are incredibly strongly wired to want them, and they're pretty important to how all our societies function.
So either you keep this cure away from most, creating an impossibly dystopian society of immortal lords and mortal slaves, or hope for a miracle like a terraformed mars within a few generations, or things are bound to crash horribly at some point probably not too far off.
I believe that species loss is inversely proportional to wealth. The poorer the country the faster its loss.
And due to advances in agricultural technology, since the Population Bomb book was published, global population has doubled while hunger has greatly diminished.
So wouldn’t the answer be more technology & wealth, not less?
