I am pretty sure ArthurStacks account is either a troll or an LLM gone rogue troll. There are so many contradictions among his own comments that it is embarrassing to list them all. But given the reaction and number of replies he gets, the trolling is rather successful.
Looks a bit like your comment was being downvoted, which is also interesting to see. If Arthur Stacks is a bot, then it potentially follows that there is vote-manipulation going on as well, to quell dissenting opinions.
That's a very wrong statement. Pretty sure I could explain all the maths, all the physics, all the electronics, all the operating systems and all the user space of a single high level language operation, when I was a fresh graduate. Now, I have forgotten most of the physics and electronics, since the university was quite some time ago, but feel free to ask any decent student of an IT bachelor, they should be able to pretty much build the PC from scratch. Sure, modern processors and whatnot add a bunch of optimizations, but you seem to really overstate the complexity of the computer.
I'm talking about understanding, fully, the state of the CPU. Not just the conceptual operation of the CPU. Like, given a specific, modern AMD or Intel CPU, understand fully all states of all transistors.
I believe with regulatory capture the companies that pushed for the regulation in the first place at least comply with it (and hopefully the regulation is not worthless). This behaviour by ClosedAI is even worse: push for the regulation, then push for the exemption.
Regulatory capture is usually the company pushing for regulations that align with the business practices they already implement and would be hard for a competitor to implement. For example, a car company that wants to require all other manufactures to build and operate wind tunnels for aerodynamics testing. Or more realistically, regulations requiring 3rd party sellers for vehicles.
I haven't heard that definition of "Regulatory Capture" before. I mostly thought it was just when the regulators are working for industry instead of the people. That is, the regulators have been "Captured." The politicians who nominate the regulatory bodies are paid off by industry to keep it that way.
Regulatory capture has different flavours, but it basically comes down to the regulated taking control of or significantly influencing the regulator. It can be by the complete sector, but in my experience most often by the leading incumbants in a domain.
It can be through keeping regulation to be mild or look the other way, but as often to put up high cost/high compliance burdens in place to pull up the drawbridge for new entrants.
I’ve seen this happen many times during the RFI/RFP process for large projects, the largest players put boots on the ground early and try to get into the ears of the decision makers and their consultants and “helpfully” educate them. On multiple occasions I’ve seen requests actually using a specific vendor’s product name as a generic term without realizing it, when their competitors’ products worked in a completely different way and didn’t have a corresponding component in their offering.
I agree. I wasn't trying to strictly define it just specify the form it usually takes.
In the case of OpenAI, were I to guess, they'll likely do things like push for stronger copyright laws or laws against web scraping. Things that look harmless but ultimately will squash new competitors in the AI market. Now that they already have a bunch of the data to train their models, they'll be happy to make it a little harder for them to get new data if it means they don't have to compete.
Regulators can require all manufactures to build and operate wind tunnels for aerodynamics testing, or alternatively allow someone from south africa to be president.
That's the first time I've ever heard someone make this unusual and very specific definition. It's almost always much simpler - you get favorable regulatory findings and exemptions by promising jobs or other benefits to the people doing the regulating. It's not complicated, it's just bribery with a different name.
We all predicted this would happen but somehow the highly intelligent employees at OpenAI getting paid north of $1M could not foresee this obvious eventuality.
Tech is partially, some would say even mostly, responsible for the current political atmosphere and climate, so no, neither we are any better than this, nor should it be avoided.
So you don't own a house after working for 30 years and you of all people are speaking about efficiency? This is really something to think about for you, mate
As someone with reasonably good mental math skills (120+ score consistently on https://arithmetic.zetamac.com/, default settings), I cannot really say it helps me much in the real life, at least not on the surface. It sure is nice to be able to estimate some things accurately without having to resort to a calculator, but in no way would anything change in the way I think or conclusions I make if I had to use one, so there might be some truth to what Mr Wolfram is suggesting.
Original RCT most definitely had underground building, both for paths and attractions. I think 1 or 2 parks in the 'campaign' was even centered about being mostly underground.
