>But maybe the worst part is that BambuLabs printers are actually really great and popular printers, for an affordable (but not cheap) price. And many people think that from now on, proprietary will become the standard.
This is the correct answer. A lot of people got used to eating shit. Turns out the 3D printer industry was selling you overpriced garbage. Bambu Labs was too good to be true so people were thinking that there must be a catch and now that there is a barely significant inconvenience, they start dog piling the company as if all hell had started breaking loose.
Now look at reality: everyone is building copycats of bambu lab printers, proving that the 3D printer industry was selling overpriced garbage products, because they knew they could get away with it. What people really wanted is the alternative reality where bambu Labs didn't exist and printers still sucked.
I gotta say the A1 Mini is the only printer I see myself using, unless something better comes along that is even easier to use.
I see my printer as a tool, a means to an end. I already have hobbies I want to use it for, I don't need another hobby of tweaking, configuring, modding, trying different brands of things, etc. My A1 is almost there and requires very little fiddling. "It Just Works". If I were younger, around the same age trying different Linux distros was a viable hobby, maybe I'd try more open source friendly printers, but I simply don't have the time or patience anymore.
> Turns out the 3D printer industry was selling you overpriced garbage.
Mostly cheap "garbage" actually. Before BambuLabs, manufacturers competed on price more than anything else, using the Ender3 as a model. BambuLabs printers were considered rather expensive. Kind of an intermediate between semi-professional printers like Ultimakers and Ender3 clones. Even the affordable BambuLabs A1 at its base price is about twice the price of an Ender3.
They did shook things up on the high end though, and this, I think, is a good thing.
Vaccines can be administered to adults for clinical trials.
If there was a way to do whole body CRISPR most of the ethical considerations would disappear, because there are a lot of ill people awaiting treatment.
Actually, it's a good thing that it's Xilinx IP. The software is nasty to get working, but it is really reliable, because it's used in thousand to ten thousand dollar boards. The cost of writing software for it is way too high though.
ONNX is horrible for anything that has variable input shapes and that is why nobody uses it for LLMs. It fundamentally is poorly designed for anything that doesn't take a fixed size image.
That's exactly what Gattaca is about. The fact that the machine scans your genes is honestly quite irrelevant and probably the biggest thing that everyone gets wrong about that movie: Everyone blindly trusts the scanner, but such a scanner cannot possibly exist.
The key claims about the film that gwern's argument builds on are false, though. E.g.: "in a setting where there are no genuine consequences to any of this, no genetic engineering, no embryo selection"
It is a rather central part of the story that genetic engineering and embryo selection are routine, and the principal protagonist is noteworthy because his parents did not use such techniques, and he was instead a "faith baby".
gwern is clearly criticizing something, but it's not what is actually portrayed in the film Gattaca.
My point is that there are no 'genuine consequences'. We are told that supposedly there is selection and that the predictive power is nearly perfect and everyone relies on solely genetics to do everything; and yet, we do not see a world which reflects such effects at all. This worldbuilding does not make sense from a scientific perspective. Instead, what we see is a world in which you have extremely cheap sequencing in a panopticon and a caste society based on seemingly-random arbitrary discrimination with no actual consequences to any supposed inferiority or superiority*, akin to the classification of supposedly-objective 'classes' in North Korea where everyone is finely graded on hereditary loyalty to the elites but could be knocked down a rung at any time for suspected disloyalty.
(My headcanon is that the esoteric story of _Gattaca_ is that none of the supposed embryo selection or valid/invalid screens exist at all, any embryo selection is just ordinary IVF quality control for aneuploidy etc, there is only cheap universal sequencing developed by a totalitarian police state like the CCP (see: Zero COVID testing), and the classification exists to manufacture distinctions and divide families and punish/reward elite supporters; the Freemans were some lower 'wavering' class, grouped with religious minorities, as indicated by their dissenting 'natural' birth, and so they earned a valid vs invalid split within their family. It makes more sense than the actual story, anyway.)
* I've remarked elsewhere that _Gattaca_ is an example of how movies with a message tend to fail by loading the dice too heavily for one side, removing any 'moral dilemma', and it is no exception: we never see any evidence that Vincent is doing anything wrong or that he shouldn't go on the space mission. In fact, given his methodical penetration, high competency, motivation, and extraordinary success at getting into the mission, he shows that he should be selected for his moxie and chutzpah. So what _Gattaca_ should have done was to make the ending Vincent suddenly clutching his heart from the shock, and fade to black.
This won't be a thing and for very obvious reasons.
Programming languages solve the specification problem, (which happens to be equivalent to "The Control Problem"). If you want the computer to behave in a certain way, you will have to provide a complete specification of the behavior. The more loose and informal that specification is, the more blanks have to be filled in, the more you are letting the AI make decisions for you.
You tell your robotic chef to make a pizza, and he does, but it turns out it decided to make a vegan pizza. You yell at the robot for making a mistake and it sure gets that you don't want a vegan pizza, so it decides to add canned tuna. Except, turns out you don't like tuna either. You yell at the robot again and again until it gets it. Every single time you're telling the AI that it made a mistake, you're actually providing a negative specification of what not to do. In the extreme case you will have to give the AI an exhaustive list of your preferences and dislikes, in other words, a complete specification.
By directly producing executables, you have reduced the number of knobs and levers that can be used to steer the AI and made it that much harder to provide a specification of what the application is supposed to do. In other words, you're assuming that the model in itself is already a complete specification and your prompt is just retrieving the already existing specification.
> Programming languages solve the specification problem, (which happens to be equivalent to "The Control Problem").
Not equivalent, for several reasons. An obvious one is simply that even providing a perfect specification in fact does nothing to solve the control problem, because you still have to enforce following of the specification.
It's similar to the human version of the control problem: we can write comprehensive and copious laws, but that doesn't automatically prevent humans from breaking them.
Besides that, the control problem is inherently subjective. The difficulty of breaking it down into an exhaustive list of deterministic rules is a big part of the problem, which programming languages do nothing to solve.
That's not even the worst part. The worst part is that there are people who fit this description as well, and the singularity crowd anthropomorphizes the "human" flaws of the AI as proof of human level intelligence.
Look at the situation with mobile phones. Half my apps on Android are impossible to back up and restore on another phone.
If my phone is damaged, "logging in" again to my bank's mandatory app means I need to fly half way across the world and visit a branch in person with my new phone.
I don't want anything like that happening to desktop devices, regardless of how small the initial steps in that direction are.
https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/12/apple-plans-to-transit...
reply