With all their talk of campaign finance reform, it is not clear to me why the DNC does not finance their most valid primary candidates? Why make them jump through hoops and raise money to stay in the race between the primary elections?
No. I want the DNC to provide some basic money all valid candidates (say those who get above certain percent of votes) so that they can spend their time making their case to the primary voters, instead of trying to raise money.
In the end, it is the primary voters who will pick the candidate who will run for presidency.
That's quite the stretch. There are reasons we have primaries in the first place and don't just automatically anoint the VP as the the next presidential candidate. And let's stop with the pretense that their were any real choices in the Democratic primaries this year to begin with.
It's true, the party machine continues to churn out party candidates, and the voters are not given much choice. I left that first item blank in the primary.
But we all have this idea that our candidate will win in a perfect situation that the party will never give us, and while it's good to argue for choices, I'm skipping past the inevitable frustration. Harris was nowhere near my first choice, now or in 2020, but she is qualified. Realistically it's going to be her, whether we agree now or in a few weeks.
I agree that it's best if she earns it, but "earn" looks like something different to everyone and to some, nothing will be enough because their preferred candidate didn't win.
Because the goal of DEI is not to hire based on diversity of thoughts. Else the places in the world where DEI was the dominant philosophy (university professors especially in the humanities) would have the highest diversity of thought. But in reality they are simply echo chambers.
But that aside, how did so many clueless folks who understand neither the technology, or the legalese, nor have enough intelligence/acumen to forsee the immediate impact of their actions happen to be on the board of one of the most important tech companies?
Not many and even fewer if you consider folks that have a good grasp of themselves, their psychology, their emotions — and how they can mislead them, and their heart.
IME most folks at Anthropic, OpenAI or whatever that are freaking out about things never defined the problem well and typically were engaging with highly theoretical models as opposed to the real capabilities of a well-defined, accomplished (or clearly accomplishable) system. It was too triggering for me to consider roles there in the past given that these were typically the folks I knew working there.
Sam may have added a lot of groundedness, but idk ofc bc I wasn’t there.
It's a way of saying that what has been historically been considered "studying AI safety" in fact bears little relation to real life AIs and what may or may not make them more or less "safe".
Yes, with the addition that I do feel that we deserve something better than I perceive we’ve gotten so far and that safety is super important; but also I don’t work at OpenAI and am not Ilya so idk
Sam Altman should make it a condition of his return that the current board be dissolved and have a completely new board picked to avoid such dramatics in the future.
The board members should have a high degree of trust and cohesion. That does not mean they should see eye-to-eye on everything. But lack of trust and backstabbings like this can create a poisonous atmosphere on the board and ultimately affect the company's ability to execute effectively. If the CEO has to worry all the time if the board is going for his ouster, this will resemble the HP and Yahoo boards of the 2000s decade.
The Oppenheimer analogy is closer than it sounds. Once the military had the technical knowledge of making the bomb, Oppenheimer was more of a liability with his pacifist leanings and had to be removed.
From all accounts, Altman is a smart operator. So the whole story doesn’t make sense. Altman being the prime mover, doesn’t have sufficient traction with the board to protect his own position and allows a few non-techies to boot him out ?
But…smart operator? Based on what? What trials has he navigated through that displayed great operational skills? When did he steer a company through a rocky time?
Unrelated, but maybe you mean special relativity. Poincaré was very close and others like Lorentz would have made the logical leap to discover special relativity.
Most scientists however agree that GR would have taken much longer for someone to fill in the crucial gap of modeling gravity as the geometry of space time.
