Humans can achieve more within one (or two, or a few) narrowly scoped field(s), after a lot of hard work and effort. LLMs can display a basic level of competency (with some mistakes) in almost any topic known to mankind. No one reasonably expects a LLM to be able to do the former, and humans certainly cannot do the latter.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Also, your comparison is unfair. You've chosen an exceptional high achiever as your example of a human to compare against LLMs. If you instead compare the average human, LLMs don't look so bad even when the human has the advantage of specialisation (e.g. medical diagnostics). A LLM can do reasonably well against an average (not exceptional) person with just a basic grade school education if asked to produce an essay on some topic.
Same if you're a host. I used to have a business which managed a few Airbnb properties on the side and I was getting plenty of word-of-mouth interest from property owners that could have let me expand quite rapidly. I gave up after 6 months, despite it being profitable, entirely because dealing with Airbnb was such a nightmare. I was wasting weeks going round in circles; emails being ignored, hours on hold on the phone, call centre staff who couldn't understand and deal with basic issues, refusing to be reasonable on insurance payouts when guests damaged things, and randomly cancelling bookings (without the guest's agreement) at very short notice with no explanation forcing me to either accept lost income or try to do a side-deal with the guest.
A reasonable libertarian however would require that all externalities be paid for (under the principle of doing no harm). If the price per unit of oil includes the cost of all the negative externalities (e.g. selling that unit comes with a requirement to remove the air pollutants and CO2) then it isn't really a problem (at least for the purpose of this discussion) if CEOs have to seek profit for shareholders.
Copyright as far as I understand is focused on wholesale reproduction/distribution of works, rather than using material for generation of new works.
If something is available without contractual restriction it is available to all. Whether it's me reading a book, or a LLM reading a book, both could be considered the same.
Where the law might have something to say is around the output of said trained models, this might be interesting to see given the potential of small-scale outputs. i.e. If I output something to a small number of people, how does one detect/report that level of infringement. Does the `potential` of infringement start to matter.
It's a good test of one aspect of a democracy, but a democracy is more than just its leader. A strongly independent judiciary is also a crucial element for a fair and free democracy. In my view the US fails in this regard. Its supreme court is effectively made up of politicians; judges with party affiliation who are appointed for life for partisan reasons. Its rulings frequently end up being split down party lines when such a thing is statistically improbable in a system where decisions should be based strictly on interpretation and application of the written words of the law.
While I wish that fwknop would have displaced the whole idea of port knocking by now, this adds the element of triggering command execution based on the packet, instead of the single fixed action of just opening a port.
Not everyone is the same. Some people are more open to change and new experiences than others. And ultimately, I'd bet that if your relatives were facing death tomorrow, they'd take a pill today that would avoid it, notwithstanding that they prefer the past to the present. Just because a person doesn't like change doesn't mean they prefer death over change.
If the issue is forgetting basic commands / configuration options then how does swapping one tool for another help? You'll just forget how to use the second tool instead.
The second tool could be more user friendly, thus easier to remember how to use it. Compare how this tool makes you generate a key vs the syntax of ssh-keygen.
Let's say longevity was already a solved problem and people had unlimited lifespans. Would you advocate executing everyone once they reach 85 so that we can avoid the problems you refer to? If the answer is no, then the only consistent position is that longevity research shouldn't be blocked. In both scenarios, the solution is to work on those additional problems rather than deliberately kill people.
There might be some parallels with petroleum extraction. It would have seemed impossible to ban / regulate drilling even if the global warming in 100 years had been obvious.
So many good things made and personal fortunes generated by oil extraction; preventing those benefits would've seemed immoral.
Life extension is kind of like that, it's easy to say "someone will deal with potential problems later". A person only looking out for themselves and an altruist can both present an argument based on morality.
Well, I don't want it to get to a point where it is already a solved problem.
Length of life should not be the criterion; quality of life should be. If every one lives to be 200, then the quality of life will necessarily reduce for everyone; we are already straining the planet's resources, even if we don't make strides in keeping everyone fit and independent until they die.
This hinges on the idea that death is preferable to a lowering of your current quality of life, which is very much not something that people are going to agree on.
The idea behind a warp drive is that it utilises expansion of space, which is not subject to speed of light restrictions. The universe has already expanded faster than light without breaking causality.
The causality violation examples I've seen in relativity all involved going back to where you started. No return trips, which includes the cosmic horizon, no causality violation.
One question I've got though: does relativity (1) remove the need for universal frame of reference, or (2) preclude the possibility of a universal frame of reference?
Because if it's the former, then (I think) FTL doesn't need to also be a time machine?
> No return trips, which includes the cosmic horizon, no causality violation.
The drawback is that if a warp drive going from A to B leaves expanded space in its wake, a return trip will take longer than light would take to make a round trip. At the same time, an observer on B looking in the direction of the ship will see a shift to blue until the ship arrives, and, then, would see a marked shift to red when observing A.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Also, your comparison is unfair. You've chosen an exceptional high achiever as your example of a human to compare against LLMs. If you instead compare the average human, LLMs don't look so bad even when the human has the advantage of specialisation (e.g. medical diagnostics). A LLM can do reasonably well against an average (not exceptional) person with just a basic grade school education if asked to produce an essay on some topic.