I have felt the same since Stable Diffusion came out.
The thing is, things have value in society partly because human efforts were involved in its making. It's not just about the end result; people still go to concert on top of listening to studio recordings for example, and people still watch humans play chess even though it's clear that good enough algorithms can beat the best humans easily. Technology like these which takes away too much immediate effort (hours needed to create the product) and long term effort (decades of training) are inherently absent of underlying value that I spoke of. Of course, if a person is only interested in consumption, it matters not how the "thing" is created.
Much of the sense of doom I have comes from the inherent erosion of this human effort element in the creative process. Whether we like it or not, the availability of mass produced content naturally threatens crafts themselves. After all, nobody wants to spend a few decades on their skills only to have their creation compared to an AI generated image produced in a few seconds.
I understand there are a lot of hypes around these technology to "humanity" but I have yet to see it. It just feels like more power consolidation to billionaires (especially when done as ClosedAI). There are artists who have tried to incorporate these but they have always felt the need to willingly not label their work as AI-generated or AI-assisted to sell (but still leaves in enough details for keen observers to tell it's AI touched).
As a whole, it just feels wrong. The most optimistic (and reasonable) take I have seen is "Just wait and see". It might feel like a non-argument, but it's the only realistic take between the hyped up techbros and the doomer cult (admittedly, I might belong to the latter group).
I think one of the most worrying thing for me is that regardless of how this plays out, this technology has only added more complexity to our society. That people are divided into camps about how they feel about the technology is simply a symptom about how much uncertainty there is in the future. This last bit will be a personal quarrel, but I personally lose any last desire to have children seeing the AI advancement. It's not right creating sentient life in an age where every year people have to play lottery to see whether technological advancement has deemed their life long effort unworthy.
I think you're right. A large part of the joy from creative endevours is actually getting good at something, and having other people enjoy your work. In the face of instant high quality generative AI placating the entertainment needs of the masses, we are creating a society where most people are unable to enjoy human creative expression, in part because human artists are just too slow. Attention spans are already shrinking, and after getting used to generative AI, few people will have the patience to wait for an author to write the second part of his magnum opus.
I suppose this is what people who lost their job during the industrial revolution felt like. Except we at least got a warning shot, if that matters at all.
Spending all of one's life in the prison that is schooling, then the industry, chasing that fleeting dream that human efforts would bring some meaning to life. All gone. Disappeared in the blink of an eye by the so called force of "progress", whatever that means.
I share the same thoughts. I think AI has reduced the value of human effort in a terrifying pace. Human identities are being stripped out, digitized and commercialized. There's no point in this struggle which gave life its temporary meaning.
A few weeks ago I thought to myself that maybe if I'm to be worthless, I'd probably pick up a few new hobbies. But which hobby do I take? Even the best of artists who spent decades mastering their skills can have it stolen in minutes by a bot. I'd learn a language, but it seemed obvious to me that translation and voice technologies are at a level that we should be seeing excellent real time translation apps within the next year. Why do anything at all?
The past few months I've been mulling over some dark thoughts. It's cliched to speak out loud like this, but really, what can we do? We are worthless.
I am already lifting weights regularly thank you. But it will not quell the disquietness of the mind. I suppose I can approach learning other hobbies with the same mentality: focusing more on self improvement than the practicality of it. But alas I am no such saint. There's just so much time needed and time is exactly what we don't have right now.
I have this feeling that humanity as we know it will die out within the next few decades. It's bleak thinking I'll have to distract myself with sports and other hobbies while observing the end of mankind.
Lifting is great but in my opinion (!) is not really a sport. It's more conditioning for sport. Sports like soccer, football, skating, skiing, mountain-biking, surfing etc. are much more complex and interesting IMO.
Of course, there are plenty of intellectually rewarding hobbies that are not sports. How about writing? You seem to have a talent for that!
I currently share your pessimism with regards to the future of humanity. AI will take over I'm afraid. But I don't know for sure and even less _when_, so for now I'm adapting instead of giving up on a future for humanity.
> I don't expect google to be able to see my activity.
The incognito default tab says that your activities are still visible websites. The incognito mode even explains that other people using the same device won't see what you browsed - which is the primary use of it anyway. I don't know what is the concern here - are people angry that a mode which doesn't promise untrackability doesn't give untrackability?
> If you look at it you can launch a Google search directly from the url bar or from the "new tab" page.
What is this meant to to poke at? You can change what the search bar does to another search engine (in fact I believe Duckduckgo is also one of the choices in a new install of chrome).
> When you are logged in Google, your own browser is logged with a special profile icon.
Doesn't Firefox also have the same browser sync service? It's a useful feature to track your browser tabs unless you're security conscious or paranoid (or both).
There's a difference between _not_ understanding what a browser does and misinterpreting what it does, which is what this entire post is.
This is an unfair comparison. For starter this version too is unoptimized, so you need to compare this with the first Rust code, which is about the same size.
Moreover a lot of the "bloat" that comes with Rust code isn't because it's more performant. Neither C++ and Rust try to be faster languages (after all, the optimization tricks you can do with your program is limited to what you can do with Assembly and its cousin, C), they try to be safer by providing more abstractions and restrictions (compile time checks).
I have spent some time with mathematical books from Dover publications and I recommend it to everybody else who is looking for good books on the subject. The contents, selection and cost are all very generous.
Sure it would be my pleasure. Kqueue allows a read request to be scheduled that is non-blocking on a page fault. Linux always blocks the thread executing read() on a page fault. This is still true using aio_read(), as all that does is run another thread to call read() which blocks. Which is great for small numbers of read requests but scales poorly.
And the bit from the paper that is relevant:
> A non kqueue-aware application using the asynchronous
I/O (aio) facility starts an I/O request by issuing
aio read() or aio write() The request then proceeds independently
of the application, which must call aio error()
repeatedly to check whether the request has completed,
and then eventually call aio return() to collect the completion
status of the request. The AIO filter replaces this
polling model by allowing the user to register the aio request
with a specified kqueue at the time the I/O request
is issued, and an event is returned under the same conditions
when aio error() would successfully return. This
allows the application to issue an aio read() call, proceed
with the main event loop, and then call aio return() when
the kevent corresponding to the aio is returned from the
kqueue, saving several system calls in the process.
OK, so you're talking about AIO and other people here are talking about mmap. If you have working AIO then you can indeed write a fully async server at the cost of extra memory copies.
Read and write system calls have nothing to do with jump instructions causing a page fault by traversing data structures. That is what Redis is all about - in memory data structures available to clients.
I'm not implying their implementation is incorrect. Just that these types of things are very easy to get wrong and when you do it's usually the type of bugs that take months to track down after you've eliminated every other subsystem involved.
Generally if there's not a huge organization putting their reputation(and $$$) on the line there is going to be bugs.
Most of the time if you're going lockfree for performance reasons there's usually much large gains to be found in your cache usage or overall architecture.
Generally if there's not a huge organization putting their reputation(and $$$) on the line there is going to be bugs.
This argument applies to any hard problem, so it doesn't seem valid. Whether there's an important bug in a project depends on someone's skill and on how much time they've dedicated to it, and it's hard to know how skilled or dedicated someone is.
When the prior against any particular implementation being correct is so high, I think it's correct to not trust any new implementation without strong evidence that it is correct, even if one is not aware of any specific issues. Personally I wouldn't adopt a new lock-free structure implementation without at least one of established backing or a formal proof of correctness.
this is less about "skill" but about the awareness how the different CPUs are implemented and where the algorithm is not behaving correctly in conjunction with the CPU spec.
In addition the error class is a mean one: doesn't happen often statistically and difficult to reproduce and as such can be very expensive to track down.
The specs are quite clear about memory fences. Just because something has a failure mode that's hard to detect doesn't mean that luck has anything to do with implementing it correctly. And if luck isn't a factor, then that leaves skill and dedication.
Specs/hw can have bugs too and he never said anything about luck.
I have no issue with hard problems but the accountability for concurrency issues is gnarly. I've had driver issues look like concurrency bugs and concurrency bugs look like driver issues. If you feel the need to take on concurrency you better have the schedule budget for it or be willing to throw it away.
I've looked at the_donald a few times to escape my own filter bubble and it's very much censored - stuff like Trump's recent reneging on the persecution of Clinton didn't appear at all, and comments calling out Trump's lie about having saved that Ford factory from relocation to Mexico were promptly deleted. It's in their rules and that's part of the package, it's extremely controlled.
Use uneddit.com on the_donald if you want to laugh.
But the point is, the_donald is obviously biased - it's literally in their name. On the other hand, r/pol is supposed to be politics in general, ideally free of bias, so censorship there is much more deplorable. I wouldn't care if r/leftwing_pol had a bias, but r/pol should be bias-free.
That was the whole point of The_Donald – to protest the perceived abuses of other subs by doing the same thing more blatantly.
That's what they mean when say they're a "free speech" subreddit: they're protesting against restrictions on free speech, they aren't providing a place for free speech.
That is just ridiculous. Creating false stories, calling out anyone who doesnt agree with them with insulting names, going on witch hunts etc is not protesting the restrictions on free speech. This only strengthens the resolve of people who want to restrict free speech even more.
The thing is, things have value in society partly because human efforts were involved in its making. It's not just about the end result; people still go to concert on top of listening to studio recordings for example, and people still watch humans play chess even though it's clear that good enough algorithms can beat the best humans easily. Technology like these which takes away too much immediate effort (hours needed to create the product) and long term effort (decades of training) are inherently absent of underlying value that I spoke of. Of course, if a person is only interested in consumption, it matters not how the "thing" is created.
Much of the sense of doom I have comes from the inherent erosion of this human effort element in the creative process. Whether we like it or not, the availability of mass produced content naturally threatens crafts themselves. After all, nobody wants to spend a few decades on their skills only to have their creation compared to an AI generated image produced in a few seconds.
I understand there are a lot of hypes around these technology to "humanity" but I have yet to see it. It just feels like more power consolidation to billionaires (especially when done as ClosedAI). There are artists who have tried to incorporate these but they have always felt the need to willingly not label their work as AI-generated or AI-assisted to sell (but still leaves in enough details for keen observers to tell it's AI touched).
As a whole, it just feels wrong. The most optimistic (and reasonable) take I have seen is "Just wait and see". It might feel like a non-argument, but it's the only realistic take between the hyped up techbros and the doomer cult (admittedly, I might belong to the latter group).
I think one of the most worrying thing for me is that regardless of how this plays out, this technology has only added more complexity to our society. That people are divided into camps about how they feel about the technology is simply a symptom about how much uncertainty there is in the future. This last bit will be a personal quarrel, but I personally lose any last desire to have children seeing the AI advancement. It's not right creating sentient life in an age where every year people have to play lottery to see whether technological advancement has deemed their life long effort unworthy.