Yeah, not sure what label we’d give to a system like this but it works. I basically do the same, but with Raindrop (the bookmark manager). I’ve tried many tools and systems, but what works (for me) is basically a personal data lake where semi-structured/incompletely-labeled stuff can be archived.
For todos and calendars, I’ve found less is more to be particularly true. I don’t see how anyone gets solid ROI for non-collaborative personal projects by using feature-filled systems. I’m quite busy, and the minimal cognitive load of pen and paper is difficult to surpass.
My understanding is that there is something like a Goldilocks part of the curve (e.g. 115-125) where you get above average intelligence and high motivation (‘hard working’).
On average, any random company will be filled with solidly average engineers. Which means, because of how numbers work, most of the engineers are neither good nor bad at engineering. They’re just mediocre.
Companies need to realize this and come to grips with it. Additionally, this holds as well for the following: beyond a certain skill threshold, a company will not really be any less competitive by failing to hire the best or even second best candidate. If you are a regional telecommunications firm, and hire the 3rd best candidate, the 1st and 2nd candidates will likely get hired in unrelated firms or unrelated regions (especially in the remote work era). And even if this isn’t so, because most everyone is mediocre, the competitiveness of your firm won’t drop appreciably.
OK. How does this answer my question, since presumably I would still want to identify at least the mediocrities rather than the complete jokers who have nothing to contribute?
No, I'm not in a position to conduct such an experiment. Even if all the interview process does is identify people who were conscientious enough to prepare well, it doesn't seem unfair to me.
Which still is by all means a externalized watchdog, which in addition is deactivated, if its not properly implemented and still working. So the philosophy itself is brokken by the programers and the users are used as sensor to find out wether the program executed properly.
A proper implementation would be, that windows for example during the installation could "starve" the process in a API or somewhere else into a internal timeout and expect that error to come up, to proof worthiness.
Also, even for relatively simple and beginner things like recursion there are levels of understanding. Some of the anecdotes I see from people using ChatGPT to learn a new technical concept suggest a false sense of deeper levels of understanding. This seems to be a result of beginner naïveté together with the supreme confidence ChatGPT exudes.
The degree of ‘needing’ to explain consciousness is basically the inverse of the degree of ‘needing’ to explain what the last digit of 22/7 is. Hardly anyone talks about or does anything with the latter, whereas the reality of the former pervades - quite literally - nearly everything humans do and think about.
I mean, you experienced the reality of consciousness while talking about the last digit of 22/7.
If there is anything in our world that needs explaining it’s consciousness.
Reality doesn’t owe us an explanation of consciousness (obviously). We owe it to ourselves though.
I’m not an insider, so I wouldn’t know, but there is an alternative take on their motivations for courting the Saudi’s. Namely, they are becoming a bit like SoftBank: they’ve been raising mega funds the past couple years and have started to run out of traditional institutional investors to court.
While this could be an alternative take all its own, it can also be combined with the crypto take (they aren’t mutually exclusive).
I think a lot of this stuff is probably just a coin flip, because we just don’t know.
I find it odd, however, when people, who seemingly accept an ASI will be developed, focus the downside risk on extinction of us as a species. Sure, that’s a risk. You know something else an ASI would likely have the ability to do, (or at least, one of its progeny)? Keep you alive and torture you for eons in weird and surreal ways.
Why is the downside always focused on paltry, meaningless things (relatively speaking) like extinction of life on earth?
> Keep you alive and torture you for eons in weird and surreal ways.
Why would it though? When people are annoyed by a bug they crush it, they don't spend their life setting it up in a torture chamber. There's the movie psychopath that tortures insects and animals and eventually humans, but I don't think it's their intellect that drives their sadism.
At worst, I imagine we'd be lab rats, quite literally the way we treat lab rats today. But with a superintelligence far beyond our abilities that does not care about us besides as a potential threat, why would it need us for testing?
I don’t see why I’d need an admin dashboard and a DBMS to effectively prioritize what I need to accomplish in 16 hours.