Oh my god, I can't stop laughing out loud at "women evolved small heads because they kept falling over and hitting their big heads on rocks," based on the fact that his sister hit her head when she was younger. What's his explanation for why men didn't do this then?? Absolutely next-level moon logic I love it so much

Ah yes, pragmatists, well known for their constantly sunny and optimistic outlook on the future, consequences be damned (?)

No no, it's "order of magnitudes". It's like "surgeons general."

Yeah, it's such a braindead libertarian position to blame tech platforms blocking slurs on The Government. It's literally not illegal to say slurs! It's just not something most normal people want to be associated with

Six fingers on the right hand

I'm just wondering how exactly he goes about doing this. Like if I wanted to casually slip the N word into a casual conversation (for... some reason) I'm not actually sure how I would go about setting it up?

Like, is he just randomly saying it at people to see how they react (which most normies rightfully would judge as very weird)? Is he using it to describe actual black people (in which case I feel like people dropping him as a friend aren't really doing it over "speech taboos", are they...)? Is he asking people "so how do you feel about the word 'n.....'?" Something else? My curiosity is piqued now.

we simply don't know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights

I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there's currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.

"We can transcend the limitations of our physical bodies via technology! Wait, no, not like that!"

The problem is I guess you'd need a significant corpus of human-written stuff in that language to make the LLM work in the first place, right?

Actually this is something I've been thinking about more generally: the "ai makes programmers obsolete" take sort of implies everyone continues to use javascript and python for everything forever and ever (and also that those languages never add any new idioms or features in the future I guess.)

Like, I guess now that we have AI, all computer language progress is just supposed to be frozen at September 2021? Where are you gonna get the training data to keep the AI up to date with the latest language developments or libraries?

“We want to make sure that you see great content, that you’re posting great content, and that you’re interacting with the community,” he says.

I feel like using the phrase "great content" unironically is sort of a tell that someone has no idea what makes 'content' 'great' in the first place

Relatedly (and relevant to this article) I feel like the funniest part of the whole AI bubble has been executives repeatedly unwittingly revealing that they could be replaced by a simple computer program

there actually is a comment making this point now:

Isn't this product kind of impossible? Like a compression program that compresses compressed files? If you have an algorithm for determining whether a generated image is good or bad couldn't the same logic be incorporated into the network so that it doesn't generate bad images?

the reply is a work of art:

We’re optimistic about using our own algorithms and models to evaluate another model. In theoretical computer science, it is easier to verify a correct solution than to generate a correct solution (P vs NP problem).

it's not even wrong, as they say