There is a very real contingent of people driving AI who genuinely believe this. And it is this belief that allows them to avoid their cognitive dissonance around the negative externalities of their work. For the environment, and really for the future of humanity too.
The /s tag weakens the post. Glad to see I got downvotes--hopefully a few of these incredibly wealthy people in positions of power had to, for even a brief moment, consider their beliefs.
...and if you had actually seen our ballot for this primary, you'd know that anyone with a semblance of care to know who they were voting for and why constituted veritable weeks of legwork. The governor's race had like 60 people running, not to mention all the judge seats, etc.
You got a bad/dry one. Happens all the time with home grown and less frequently with commercial products. My backyard trees have improved, but only with fairly intensive upkeep.
The flavor coming right off the tree can be truly candy-like given optimal conditions. After tasting the best ones from my own tree, I had the revelation that so many things that are "orange flavored" are mimicking navels specifically.
It's the pervasive theme in the book, but never really given a conceptual grounding further than "this sort of looks like recursion or can be modelled circularly so it's a strange loop". The vagueness of it reveals itself as being "more intuitive", because a vaguer pattern will have more matches. I don't remember Hofstadter digressing on whether these loops work "in reverse" either, which is sort of what the author here is denying. Basically positing that f doesn't have a well-defined inverse.
It's only a little bit comforting that computers still live in meatspace when you consider something like an AI-controlled Metal Gear roaming around though.
> it's still the season of perpetual hope wherever you are
At this moment in time, the President has bombed Caracas (presumably under the War Powers Act [1]) and claims to have captured Maduro.
From here, there are paths that wind up marginally good and many that end up somewhat catastrophically. Few wind up great. Few wind up as total shitshows (the risk in this being a Venezuelan civil war).
Seeing that there are positive possible outcomes isn't an expression of naive hope. It's identifying possible futures. I have no clue, personally, how to prevent a civil war in Venezuela–I'm neither hopeful nor on the edge of my seat.
And again, none of this justifies the actions. A gambler may win big betting his house. That doesn’t make it a good call, even if we can recognise that the outcome wound up favourably.
