I think what my ideal is basically DnD, but with an AI DM.
This is something that I'm hoping the current LLM and future AI work eventually get us to. If we can get persistent context and memory, or at least a simulacrum of that, we could get to truly dynamic reactive worlds
I'd say that the internet has also strongly lowered the barriers to external propaganda and influence, which is another major factor here. When you've got a huge swarm of "people" with no stake, or even a negative stake in your country, that's a naturally destabilizing factor
You mean like the countless western "safety", copyright and "PC" changes that've come through?
I'm no fan of the CCP, but it's not as though the US isn't hamstringing it's own AI tech in a different direction. That area is something that china can exploit by simply ignoring the burden of US media copyright
Just a note, chatGPT does retain a persistent memory of conversations. In the settings menu, there's a section that allows you to tweak/clear this persistent memory
Feels like this is the fundamental flaw with a lot of things not just in the private sector, but the public one too.
Look at the FDA, where it's notoriously bogged down in red tape, and the incentives slant heavily towards rejection. This makes getting pharmaceuticals out even more expensive, and raises the overall cost of healthcare.
It's too easy to say no, and people prioritize CYA over getting things done. The question then becomes how do you get people (and orgs by extension), to better handle risk, rather than opting for the safe option at every turn?
I take your broader point but personally I feel like it’s ok if the FDA is cautious. The incentives that bias towards rejection may be “not killing people”.
What about the people who die because a safe and effective drug that could have saved their life got rejected? The problem is that there's a fundamental asymmetry here - those deaths are invisible but deaths from a bad drug that got approved are very visible.
I mean drugs are different than consumer technology. Instagram isn’t great but it doesn’t cause birth defects. Also things like the compassionate release of hiv drugs in study show the govt can see the nuance here with enough pressure.
I deliberately chose the FDA here specifically because of this. The problem here is that on a societal level, we have to be willing to tolerate some risk. If a drug could have saved many, but is rejected because of occasional complications, that sounds like a poor cost benefit analysis.
You have a flawed understanding of the FDA pharmaceutical approval process. There is no bias towards either rejection or approval. If an drug application checks all the required boxes then it will be approved.
I think the reason why some people mistakenly think this makes healthcare more expensive is that over recent years the FDA has raised the quality bar on the clinical trials data they will accept. A couple decades ago they sometimes approved drugs based on studies that were frankly junk science. Now that standards have been raised, drug trials are generally some of the most rigorous, high-quality science you'll find anywhere in the world. Doing it right is necessarily expensive and time consuming but we can have pretty high confidence that the results are solid.
For patients who can't wait there is the Expanded Access (compassionate use) program.
I think you're going to realize that as time passes and this becomes more normalized, your opinion is going to become the minority. That might be a good thing, or maybe not.
Sure, it's been done before, but looking at the end result though, I'm not sure if that's a strong argument for whether it should be done again.
Look at the end state of the US auto industry. It's uncompetitive in basically every part of the world and thus basically irrelevant, except in the US. Unless somehow something different is going to happen here, this could end up with Intel continuing to perform poorly, negating the point of keeping it alive to begin with.
The big difference is that chess is a game/sport, and those are about competition between humans. It's a deliberately restricted ruleset to encourage such, thus the (imperfect) banning of assistance.
The same doesn't really apply to everything outside of that.
Still, you'd think that status would still remain, it's not like the invention of the car removed the glory of being the world's fastest sprinter.
This is something that I'm hoping the current LLM and future AI work eventually get us to. If we can get persistent context and memory, or at least a simulacrum of that, we could get to truly dynamic reactive worlds
reply