FaceDeer

Could it perhaps be that online communities are in bubbles that focus primarily on his failures and downvote into oblivion any mention of successes he might have had?

…

No, it must be the money that’s wrong.

Nobody specified LLMs until this comment and OpenAI does more than just LLM research, so “it” should be assumed to be AI in general.

They’re working on AI. LLMs are only one particular type of AI.

will never be agi and agi is a long way off.

That’s contradictory.

Given the unexpected advances in AI over the past few years I wouldn’t be so sure that AGI is a long way off, and I certainly see no reason to expect that there will never be AGI. Whenever there’s an example of something already existing in nature it’s a good bet that we’ll be able to copy how it works using technology at some point.

And yet this community seems more techno-pessimistic than even /r/technology, which is a challenge.

Indeed. And Boeing is the main contractor for it so you can be sure it won’t suffer any mishaps.

There’s others that are trying, Blue Origin has their New Shepherd rocket that is able to land, but it’s a suborbital tourism vehicle that’s basically just a toy. They’re working on a partly-reusable orbital launcher that’s like a souped up Falcon 9 but it’s still in development. Several other smaller startups are working on smaller Falcon-9-like launchers with expendable second stages, and China is building a straight up carbon-copy of the Falcon 9 and Starship. But SpaceX is the leader in this field and currently the only one who’s actually successful. Everyone is following in their wake at the moment.

Indeed, I’m surprised this dumb clickbait title didn’t literally include Elon Musk’s name like so many other “Elon Musk’s <Company Name> Does <Thing That’s Actually Normal But Sounds Bad>!” headlines.

Yes, Elon Musk has some awful views and does some awful things. Doesn’t mean everything he does is therefore bad. Henry Ford was a colossal antisemite, as another example, and did some really weird and awful things to his employees. Unfortunately some of the same personal characteristics that can lead people to be innovative industrialists can often also lead to them being assholes.

Turns out analogies are not the actual thing they’re analogizing, though. Synthetic data - when properly created and curated - has proven to be very useful and effective in training AI.

So now it’s basically people who aren’t going to use this tool complaining that other people who do want to use this tool will get to use it.

Not much incentive for them to try to satisfy the complainers, then.

Nope, it’s disabled by default.

So they fixed the major issues that people were complaining about. Let’s see if people therefore stop complaining.

As I understand it the corrosion is provoked by the chip’s operation, the patch reduces the voltage load which makes the corrosion less likely to happen or to advance less quickly.

They’re chasing profit too, though. “Taking a stand” means they’re advertising, trying to differentiate themselves from their competitors and draw in people who hold anti-AI views.

That will last until that segment of users becomes too small to be worth trying to base their business on.

So, are the people saying “Trump is fine…” lying through their teeth? Maybe they should swap him for a different candidate, like Biden?

Accountable for doing statistical analysis?

Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it’s injected into deep geological structures it doesn’t stay underground.

Roots rot too. Otherwise the ground underneath forests would have hundreds of meters of accumulated root mass built up over the millennia.

No, by this logic one just needs to take into account how long is required before you consider something “sequestration.” Ocean sediment, for example, stays down there for hundreds of millions of years before subduction and vulcanism might bring the carbon back up. So it’s not permanent but it’s certainly permanent enough.

Trees last for a couple of decades. And once a forest is established they turn over continuously, so the forest as a whole emits as much carbon as it takes in. As we see here with the boreal forests in the article, the carbon comes back out into the atmosphere quite easily. I personally wouldn’t consider it a very good “sequestration” method.

If you really want to use trees for carbon sequestration, a good approach might be setting up big tree farms and then sinking the harvested wood into anoxic lakes. That’d take the carbon out of circulation for a long enough time that future generations can figure out what to do with it afterward.