I'd be interested to see sources for the claim that poor eyesight is evolutionarily recent.
I strongly suspect it's more a matter of "won't kill you". Nearsightedness is far more common than farsightedness, and it's only in the last two hundred or so years that there's been any major benefit in seeing fine details at distance. The fuzzy shapes afforded by 20/80 vision are plenty enough to hunt a mammoth.
Having 20-20 vision is nice for avoiding lions and tigers, but it's a luxury spec, because movement acuity doesn't decrease linearly with nearsightedness, and movement acuity (plus traveling in groups, as prehistoric humans were wont to do) can take care of business decently-enough on its own - so I wouldn't call it "evolutionary-pressure"-nice.
Do you have any source for this? As someone born in the summer to a farming family with poor eyesight, I find it hard to believe that happened because I wasn't exposed to enough sun as an infant or child.
Interesting study. Myopia can definitely be caused by focusing too much on nearby things.
I just so happen to have Hyperopia with astigmatism, neither of which came from a lack of outdoor exposure. (If anything, I needed less time outside).
That's a bit of the issue I have with such a broad generalization. It's true that for some, a lack of time outdoors damaged their eyesight, it's not universally true that all or perhaps even most poor eyesight is a result of staying indoors.
Samson and Delilah would like to have a word with you. Also with Japanese Samurai. You loose your mythological power, leading to lost status, suicide, ...
And if it isn't already false it will be false in 6 months, or 1.5 years on the outside. AI is a moving target, and the oldest people among you might remember a time in the 1750s when it didn't talk to you about code at all.
I wonder who wrote this? Doesn't sound like Altman's voice.
I wonder who theorized this? Altman isn't known for having models about AGI.
To the actual theorist: Claiming in one paragraph that AI goes as log resources, and in the next paragraph that the resource costs drop by 10x per year, is a contradiction; the latter paragraph shows a dependence on algorithms that is nothing like "it's just the compute silly".
Hadn't seen that before, and despite being bog-standard Bostrom it's still more of an attempt to hold a theory than I'd seen associated with him before. Note nonoverlap of writing style and theory with the present post.
For my caveat "at usable prices", no, there haven't been any. o1 (full) and now o3 have been advancements, but are hardly available for real-world use given limitations and pricing.
This seems like decent alignment-positive work on a glance, though I haven't checked full details yet. I probably can't make it happen, but how much would someone need to pay you to make up your time, expense, and risk?
I think it is reasonable to believe humans will use all three technologies as a means to an end. I think the user you replied to was more concerned about that, from my understanding.
the idea of a deep-nation-state-cold-war psyop campaign bluffing and escalating math proofs is so goddamn hilarious, apt, and ironic it would be almost better than the mistake of pissing off the Aliens by offending them with math homework.
"Shizuo Kakutani joked that the problem [Collatz conjecture] was a Cold War invention of the Russians meant to slow the progress of mathematics in the West."
This still suffers from the MitM / Two Generals Problem, and is existentially problematic if they also demand the simple, reasonable sum of the first BB(17) numbers modulo Grahams number, within 14 business local parsec-years.
Their spam filter may be an annoying ping acknowledgement, a directed gamma ray beam from soft gamma repeater, just to irradiate their own hoax-doers suspects.
