Agents playing the iterated prisoner's dilemma learn to cooperate. It's usually not a dominant strategy to be entirely sociopathic when other players are involved.
You don't get that many iterations in the real world though, and if one of your first iterations is particularly bad you don't get any more iterations.
> You don't get that many iterations in the real world though
True, for iterations between the same two players, but humans evolved the ability to communicate and so can share the results of past interactions through a network with other agents, aka a reputation. Thus any interaction with a new person doesn't start from a neutral prior.
They still fail in the real world, where a single failure can be highly consequential. AI coding is lucky it has early failure modes, pretty low consequence. But I don't see how that looks for an autonomous management agent with arbitrary metrics as goals.
Anyone doing AI coding can tell you once an agent gets on the wrong path, it can get very confused and is usually irrecoverable. What does that look like in other contexts? Is restarting the process from scratch even possible in other types of work, or is that unique to only some kinds of work?
What hit me when I read Rama in the 1980s is how alien it all was. This is not Star Trek where the aliens speak English and look human-ish.
There's a lesson there for AI I think. We anthropomorphize AI in the media but perhaps the more realistic possibility is that AI is a fundamentally different type of intelligence that may never be fully human-like.
IMHO the EU is the best place to live if you're a rank-and-file worker, and the US is the best place to live if you're ambitious.
EU integration brings some advantages but it also becomes harder to experiment. Ideally you'd have a few member states vying to become the Shenzhen of Europe but that won't happen under EU integration.
Well said. Another factor that nobody in the EU likes to talk about is regulations like worker protections that make it hard to do layoffs. Such regulations are popular but they strongly favor large predictable companies over startups.
No economy has both: (1) a predictable investment and work environment, and (2) a vibrant technology sector. You make your choices and you live with them.
As we approach this pole running off to infinity, what bit of reality will intervene? An infinity in a model indicates you're missing some aspect of saturation or friction that will act to slow things down. Every exponential eventually becomes an s-curve.
Data center space? Electrical power? The amount of training data available? Society's capacity to accept rapid change?
Yes but the thing is, most people don't actually want realistic movement. They want to be Neo in The Matrix, not some average schlub that gets easily winded and jumps six inches high.
Lex Fridman's interview with Todd Howard goes into this in depth.
Intel should have spun out their fab in 2009-2010 when the signs were clear: Mobile was taking off, AMD spun out their fab, Intel had missed the boat on mobile CPUs, and Apple had acquired PA Semi and was investing heavily in custom silicon.
High-end fab is a volume game and that was the time frame when Intel was still process competitive and could have competed for Apple's business (and Nvidia's, ...). But that would never happen as a division of Intel, nobody wants to send their designs to a competitor.
Thats such a rear view mirror take. I am not in this industry but it was obvious Intel had a manufacturing advantage back then and this let them be the dominant player in this space for decades. High margins and they were the only game in town for the x86 in most key markets (AMD was just a cover for antitrust cases).
Even 10 years ago Intel was a blue chip stock, saying they should have cannibalized their lead to go into a lower margin market for volume would have gotten you kicked off any executive role.
Imagine being in a boardroom in 2010:
- You're printing money with 60%+ gross margins
- You have a 2-3 year process lead over everyone
- Your R&D budget dwarfs competitors because of your integrated model
- PC sales are still growing and servers are booming with cloud build-outs
- Also you are betting that Apple is going all in on your foundry to drive the volume and R&D
And someone proposes: "Let's split the company, cut our margins for a bet against our design team in mobile volume, and start manufacturing chips for companies that might become our competitors."
You're probably right; either that or beat Qualcomm/Samsung at providing the non-Apple chips. As rafaelmn points out, 2010 may be premature, but by 2015, they should have understood.
How they fiddled and watched Apple take the phones that make a profit; Samsung/Qualcomm provide chips to the rest; and all the hyperscalers make their own arm chips in the data center while doing nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is beyond comprehension.
Meanwhile, (I think Asianometry?) pointed out that Intel's headcount was recently as large as AMD, nVidia, and TSMC combined.
Biological weapons are probably the more worrisome case for AI. The equipment is less exotic than for nuclear weapon development, and more obtainable by everyday people.
reply