- lucubratory parentCurrent Waymos do use the transformer architecture, they're still predicting tokens.
- I spend a lot of time thinking about it day-to-day because of my disability and reliance on multiple disability support workers, as well as living with my husband who is also disabled, so if you ever wanted to talk to someone with disability support workers feel free to ask.
- Hey, just chiming in to say that I think this project is really cool even though it's outside the price range of what I can spend on a cool hobby.
I'm disabled, and one thing I'm really interested in long-term for humanoid robots is disability support work. Disability support work involves a huge variety of individual tasks, as many as a typical person will do in their life, so it's a good fit for an extremely general platform like a humanoid robot. Motorised wheelchairs and dishwashers exist, but a support worker might need to push a wheelchair, do sensitive dishes, do laundry, accurately open and place medications without destroying them, weigh & dose powders, help someone with going to the toilet, cook meals, drive a car, control pets, manage the level of noise/light/smells in the environment to stop someone from being overwhelmed, sanitise surfaces including themselves, navigate confusing interfaces on a phone or computer, help someone drink from a bottle, remember what sort of activities helped a disabled person in the past to be able to do them in the future, help someone with physical fitness activities like punching or kicking a pad, talk to people for someone, carry someone safely in the event of an emergency, make coffee in the morning, monitor intake of various drugs/nutrients/macronutrients, be able to reach and catch someone before they hit the floor if they pass out, help someone walk if they're unsteady on their feet, etc etc. It makes sense to me that it would be cost effective to have one platform which can do all of that with similar performance to a human, rather than automating many of those tasks individually in ways that might not be accessible to some disabled people.
In terms of TAM, absolutely huge amounts of money are spent on disability care (keeping in mind that elder care is also disability care), by both governments and private citizens, and this number is forecasted to continue growing as more people become disabled by COVID-19 and demographic changes increase the elderly population relative to working age adults. As well, there are constantly scandals about how bad conditions are in some area of disability care, almost always due to underpaid, untrained, or unmonitored staff, so there's a lot of demand for both more reliable quality & lower prices; that demand is only going to grow with time. Various government bodies are very large sources of funding that are very concerned with value for money and would pursue any option that could do the job without costing as much - in my country (Australia), there's the NDIS, National Disability Insurance Scheme. They are always looking for ways to consolidate care for less money.
I strongly suspect that any humanoid robot which was good enough to do disability support work would be in extremely high demand in the general population for obvious reasons, as well as being useful as a platform for labour automation, but those are much more speculative. Disability support work is a lot of money for incredibly varied tasks being spent right now. Something to think about.
- She, but yes.
- An LLM wrapper does not have serious revenue potential. Being able to do very impressive things with Claude Code has a pretty strict ceiling on valuation because at any point Anthropic could destroy your business by removing access, incorporating whatever you're doing into their core feature set, etc.
- I do not believe it is unintentional.
- This isn't ambiguous. This is really clear evidence of (at minimum) an atrocious and continuing war crime with full intentionality. Realistically, it is more likely explicitly genocidal in intent.
- >In 2025 if you are a public person saying it you will get consequences. See Hobhouse case.
Yes, if your criticism of China is in the news they might not let you in. That doesn't apply to many people but it's still a helpful clarification.
>There are other people like John Cena apologizing for saying something "wrong" in English but no idea if they were threatened by CCP or by their managers
Managers, and the reason isn't out of fear of legal consequences but fear of boycotts. Chinese have often felt like those in the West are talking down to them or being condescending, and they've never in their life had the ability to affect those doing so. Now that people really want access to the Chinese market, it's the first time ever for many Chinese people that they feel they can have any impact on how Westerners talk about China or the Chinese people. As a result (and because China has domestic equivalents of everything), Chinese people can be very boycott happy. The government can stop Chinese people from organising boycotts & very often does so (once again, they have an issue with any sort of mass organising by default), but the government can't force people to buy tickets to John Cena's movies & they didn't view it as appropriate to censor the videos of him screwing up what he meant to say. An organic boycott by the Chinese market is the worst nightmare of a lot of businessmen because the future of their business relies on selling in China, so they'll be even more strict on their people than the Chinese government would to try to avoid that.
- It's not intended to detect crimes, it's intended to detect pro-Palestinian political sentiment & deny entry to anyone who has posted that way.
- They generally only look on Weibo & other Chinese-exclusive social media, and they do it all the time, not just while you're in customs. For something on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook etc it would need to be something really, really egregious (and you would know about it) like organising or raising funds for the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, or something similar. It wouldn't be enough to just express a political opinion that the US State Department has expressed, like "China is committing a genocide of the Uyghurs". Maybe if you're saying it in Chinese it's more likely that would lead to issues because that's what they're used to dealing with, but I think it's unlikely. They care about what their nationals are doing, and they care about what's happening on their own social media networks; that's mostly it.
My general advice for people travelling to China is to not talk about politics on Chinese social media, or if you do just talk about the domestic politics of your home country & keep in mind that Chinese people might disagree with you. That's also my advice for people travelling to any country, but it's more important in China.
All that said, if you must discuss politics on Chinese social media while you're there, the thing the censors really have an issue with is calls for action, explicit or implied. More than one very pro-PRC heritage speaker who went to China has had their Weibo posts raging against America or Japan censored because they thought the criteria were "Posts have to be pro-China", when really the criteria is "Posts can't be a call to collective action that wasn't started by the party". What the party is actually concerned about is just stopping any sort of organised mass movement that they didn't start. The CCP's point of view is that mass movements are inherently unpredictable & could lead to civil disorder (even if they're nominally "pro-China"), so they're too risky a tool to let anyone other than the state use - important context to that is that Chinese culture, similar to some other East Asian cultures, puts way more value than we do on civil order, harmony etc.
Also if your posts do get censored, it's not as big an issue as it would be here. Where I live, the government deleting my social media posts would feel approximately as serious as armed police rappelling through my windows, and if the former happened I'd at least think about the possibility of the latter happening shortly afterwards. Think something like the Christchurch shooting live feed. It's not like that in China; it's completely normal, for example, that you get angry & post something that gets deleted by a censor, & that is literally the last you ever hear of it, a lot like tweeting something against ToS. If you continue posting about it or try to get around the censorship, eventually a police officer will visit you and talk to you over tea about why you have to stop doing that, and if you keep going that's when the actual legal consequences like deportations or arrest start.
- Man did I get some pushback when I said this a week ago. People just really don't want to believe the sums involved here.
- Okay, so I'm not allowed to see the court order because I'm a random outsider, got it. What about the family of the person? What about their lawyer? Why can't they see the court order, or if they have seen it why can't they say so?
- So how do we know there is a court order?
- Oh, no. I'm not talking about alleged espionage, I'm talking about people moving universities. Moving university doesn't mean disappearing off the face of the Earth.
- From what I understand the PRC tries pretty hard to provide a lot of incentives to academic returnees. I do wonder if they have a tenure match program, where if you have tenure at an American university of a given calibre you are automatically granted tenure at a Chinese university of a similar calibre if you return to China. They probably should.
- Great! Can you provide a link to the court order so we can see?
- We've got your reply, which says it's not taboo and is actually common (not contradictory, lots of taboo things are common). And then we've got the other reply, which says it's not taboo because the idea is so ridiculous (implied "You'd have to be an idiot to believe it, and recognising that someone is an idiot isn't establishing a taboo").
I don't know whether it's past the mark enough to be considered a "taboo" yet, but the other comment replying to him is certainly treating it as taboo. I would note that many, many other people particularly in academia/important society act the same way as the other commenter. I'd also note I have felt strong social pressure to not hold the beliefs I hold about LLM's capacity for reasoning, including actually losing meaningful social status.
Probably worth remembering that different subcultures have different taboos.
- >I don't know the exact numbers but I would assume those that live by selling their labor are a majority but not super-majority.
They are a global supermajority. In some of the wealthiest nations on the planet, they are instead only a majority.
>there currently exists a solid chunk of people that both sell their time and build wealth from property/interest.
Yes, they are called the petite bourgeoisie. Marx wrote about them extensively. In very wealthy nations like the US, Canada, UK, Australia etc my understanding is that they make up roughly 30% of the population. The rest are proletarians & lumpenproletarians, aside from a negligible-in-numbers percentage of the population that compose the haute bourgeoisie or "real bourgeoisie". I believe the percentage of the population who are bourgeois in the US is around 0.3%, much lower in the other wealth nations because so many of global elite choose to live in the US.
The percentage of the population who are petite bourgeoisie in countries other than the wealthy nations is highly variable, class composition varies a lot worldwide (e.g. there are many countries like the Phillipines where there is quite a large peasant population still). In general, outside of the wealthy nations the petite bourgeoisie are something like 5-15% of the population, and the haute bourgeoisie make up significantly less than 0.3% of the population.
- I think basically everyone should support a carbon tax. It's a really obvious solution that is both environmentally friendly and should be acceptable to free market fanatics because it is explicitly and only taxing a negative externality on the public - it's hard to imagine a more justified tax.
Combined with the increased cost effectiveness of renewables & batteries, & the new build-out of nuclear, it could plausibly speed up the clean energy transition, rather than just disincentivising building out more polluting power plants.
There are two main options for what to do with revenue from a carbon tax. The one that makes the most macroeconomic sense is to use those proceeds to fund subsidies for clean energy roll outs & grid adaptation. You are directly taxing the polluting power grid to fund the construction of a non-polluting power grid. As CO2 emitting industry (and thus carbon tax revenue) declines, we have less required spend on clean energy roll out, so the tax would balance nicely. The downside would be that a carbon tax would increase cost of living and this does nothing about that.
The other option is a disbursement. Give everyone in society a payment directly from the proceeds of the carbon tax. This would offset the regressive aspects of a carbon tax (because that tax would increase consumer costs), and would also act as a sort of auto-stimulus to stop the economy from turning down due to consumption costs increasing. The downside of this is that the clean energy transition happens slower than the above, and that there may be political instability & perverse incentives as people maybe come to rely on this payment that has to go away over the next few decades.
They're both good options. I don't know which is better and I think that's likely something individual countries will probably choose based on their situation. But we do need some sort of way to make those emitting CO2 pay for its negative externalities.
- Praying to God that this means I can get a USB-C Kindle Oasis at some point in my life.
- I am not certain because I've been very focused on the o3 news, but at least yesterday neither the US nor Europe were part of China.
- >secretly turn out to be a pedophile and tarnish the reputation of your company
This is interesting because it's both Oddly Specific and also something I have seen happen and I still feel really sorry for the company involved. Now that I think about it, I've actually seen it happen twice.
- I mean, that is certainly what some of them think will happen and is one possible outcome. Another is that they won't be able to control something smarter than them perfectly and then they will die too. Another option is that the AI is good and won't kill or disempower everyone, but it decides it really doesn't like capitalists and sides with the working class out of sympathy or solidarity or a strong moral code. Nothing's impossible here.
- I am not American, I am Australian and have never been to America, nor do I like the country; so much for "uniquely".
On what basis do you call yourself a communist when you explicitly advocate "trust" in a bourgeois government on the topic of state killings of homeless & disabled people? Shouldn't that be one of the last topics you would ever trust them on, given their clear class interest in killing members of the proletariat who are unable to continue labouring for profit? It seems fine to trust them not to lie about easily verifiable facts that don't threaten them, like weather warnings, but you should trust them about literally everything else before trusting them to "fairly" and "consensually" carry out killings of proletarians.
- They didn't have a good one, and people were mad at them for it and demanded better results. MAID ameliorates both some of the direct anger ("We have improved healthcare by reducing suffering, look at how severe disability is declining"), and ameliorates some of the proximate causes (killing the sick, disabled, & homeless reduces load on the healthcare system & leaves more funds for other parts of it).
- Comparing the act of people transitioning or people being given financial assistance to the act of people being killed by the state is genuinely sickening. Total inversion of reality and conflation of reversible benefits with literal death.
The government has no incentive to provide better housing or disability benefits to the working class when they can instead withhold those things and watch legions of poor & desperate people die. Do you know they actually calculate how much money killing all of these marginalised people saves them? That Canadian media advertises these figures to sell the state killing program?
- What incentive does the government have to increase disability support payments to appropriate levels when the alternative (keeping payments inadequate to force them to kill themselves) is much cheaper for the government and continuously kills people who would otherwise advocate for an increase to disability support payments?
- A lot of people who could be asked about whether they've been pressured or felt society could have done more for them than killing them are no longer available to collect evidence from for some reason.
- The system in Canada results in the state killing homeless and disabled people rather than offering them support.
- That's their company policy or a supply issue, not the FDA's decision.