My family has a history of schizophrenia. Sometimes I feel tempted to start thinking about my mind as a collection of separate agents and separate voices, and quickly it starts to feel like it's pulling me into a place where I know I shouldn't be looking.
Compared to the uniformity of LLMs, human minds are fascinatingly different from each other. Are voices good, are they bad, or maybe you don't have even an inner monologue? Yet these differences mostly stay hidden and don't stop us from collaborating and understanding each other through empathy.
> My family has a history of schizophrenia. Sometimes I feel tempted to start thinking about my mind as a collection of separate agents and separate voices, and quickly it starts to feel like it's pulling me into a place where I know I shouldn't be looking.
No history of schizophrenia here, but my mind definitely is that way. (Thanks, DID!)
There's a theory (multiple theories, actually, like Internal Family System) that most minds are that way, they're just more or less distinctly separated.
> "Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript?"
If the implementation brief says "attempting a reconnect in this handler would be a wild goose chase", the model needs to know enough Shakespeare, at least indirectly, to understand that expression...
This is basically what people were saying about Microsoft versus Google and other upstarts in the early 2000s.
Slow and steady wins the race. How could they lose to something on the web, when Microsoft owns the web browser itself? Everything runs on Windows and IE. They can just relax and wait for competitors to exhaust themselves, then quickly build their own version. Isn’t that how Netscape lost. Etc.
Now Google is the new Microsoft, just like Microsoft became the new IBM.
> This is basically what people were saying about Microsoft versus Google and other upstarts in the early 2000s.
They would have been right if Google's marquee product was an Office Suite.
Google was the AI company before AI companies were a thing. The comparison with Microsoft and IBM are misplaced because they failed to capture new territory; ML/AI is Google's stomping grounds. The criticism that Google is bad at consumer chatbots is true, but that's not where the real future value lays.
I've never heard or read anyone saying this in the early 2000s. They had publicly stated their contempt of the web earlier, made fools of themselves when they realized their mistake and went all-in on it, and spent the whole decade lagging behind. The closest they had to an online success was Wizzes.
For some of us OpenAI is already the new Google. I prefer chatgpt even when I'm searching for web links. Google Search had already been deteriorating terribly even before the rise of LLMs.
> "In 2017 Eric Lengyel published an algorithm, called Slug, that stopped dodging. It renders glyphs directly from their outlines in the fragment shader, with no texture atlas and no per-frame tessellation. Lengyel patented it in 2019, and on March 17, 2026 he dedicated that patent to the public domain."
It's nice that he gave the patent to public domain, but this is not how patents are supposed to work. You can't patent something two years after it was already published.
I'm guessing he actually filed for a patent before publishing, and the article should read: "Lengyel was granted a patent for it in 2019"
It's an AI-written article, so maybe it's not reasonable to expect it to be consistent on this level...
* The provisional patent application for the Slug algorithm was filed on March 27, 2017, and this is incorporated into the final patent at the beginning of the Description section. A provisional patent establishes a priority date for everything it discloses (which was the whole algorithm), and it gives the inventor one year to complete the application process.
* The JCGT paper was published a few months later on June 14, 2017, after the priority date.
* The final patent application was submitted on February 1, 2018, before the one-year deadline.
* The patent was granted about 1.5 years later by the USPTO on August 6, 2019.
You need to file before publishing to establish the priority date.
A sibling comment notes that he indeed filed a provisional patent in 2017 before going public. That’s the part that the article muddled. 2019 was when the patent was granted, not filed.
Elon is the world's biggest stan (who is actually doing things rather than just talking about it) for solar power and electrification of transport, how is that a call for inaction?
A funny thing I like to do with people like this is point out the fact that Elon has perhaps done more than any person in history to get humans off of fossil fuels. And then when they sputter in disagreement I always like to ask who they'd propose instead. If they have any answer at all they inevitably give the name of a person who just demands that someone else do something (e.g. an activist or media figure), never actually someone who has put their time, effort and money into building a better system.
Ok I’ll play, but you’re not going to like the answer: Xi Jinping. Putting aside all the valid criticisms of China under Xi, the scale at which they’ve embraced electric car and solar energy puts anything Tesla has done to shame. We’re talking more solar and wind capacity added in one year than the U.S. has in total. And China has done more to lower the cost of solar panels and batteries than anyone else while dominating global production. None of it would be possible without an intentional national policy.
Nice job. Best answer I've heard. I think Musk is still a better candidate for fighting global warming, as China has also done an enormous amount of polluting, burning of coal, etc. But I'm not really sure how it nets out. It could totally be that Xi's the most culpable for polluting the planet, rather than saving the planet.
Rough napkin math: current annual PRC solar output lifetime production displaces / prevents 40billion barrels of oil. ~100mbd per day... i.e. basically GLOBAL oil usage. So every year, PRC solar printing enough solar to replace 1 year of oil use over their life time (assume 20% capacity factor / substitution method / equivalent work efficiency). For reference global LNG is 70mbd, global coal 100mbd equivalent. PRC industry scaled at producing 80 billion barrel equivalent of solar (not enough battery scale to absorb right now)... i.e if there's enough demand / ability to adopt PRC can basically produce enough renewable to eventually displace 2/3 global fossil use if demand steady (it's not). If one attributes solar industrial policy to Xi, like this stupid game to play but if were to play it, Xi's renewable industrial policy alone will prevent doubling of global fossil use at current adoption pace. This just solar, excludes other renewables and eventual nuclear export. The net is extremely easy, global energy demand increases as billions develop, and PRC is almost solely responsible for making sure high % of generation is renewable and not fossil, on global scale.
TLDR in this hypothetical, it's just Xi on an 100 story podium, no one else is even in the building. Unless we eventually credit someone for portable fusion, i.e. 60% of global oil used in transport that can't be displaced at utility scale energy solutions, and one credits Xi for MIC2025/PRCEV/battery then no one will ever even dethrone Xi.
> TLDR in this hypothetical, it's just Xi on an 100 story podium, no one else is even in the building. Unless we eventually credit someone for portable fusion, i.e. 60% of global oil used in transport that can't be displaced at utility scale energy solutions, and one credits Xi for MIC2025/PRCEV/battery then no one will ever even dethrone Xi.
Ehhhh, I'd say he's not in some league of his own. Xi is also industrializing with fossil fuels and China became the planet's largest producer of CO2 under his leadership and he's been outsourcing dirty industries abroad, particularly to Africa. I'd give more credit to people lower-down the totem pole in China, who are leading the charge for clean energy such as Wang Chuanfu, but he's very explicitly following in Elon's footsteps.
It's also a little wild to discount pollution already produced in previously unseen amounts while crediting to them hypothetical future reductions. Last year China had it's highest CO2 emission ever, and even with solar it's possible that their CO2 output will increase.
He literally sets / signs off on industrial policy, others follow, This not malaria/polio/smallpox where one can attribute credit and proliferation to X team, and Y policy. PRC aggregate renewable spans 100s of sectors and programs etc, only sensible for credit to flow up to the big man. If one wants to split hairs, can also credit Hu who did indigenous innovation and renewable act, but execution and magnitude increase in industrial capacity expansion realized under Xi. Like literally no one else has stamped and enable industrial policy across sectors to displace current/future emission on order of magnitude of PRC renewable. World power demand is going to increase magnitude via simple 50% percent of world developing... MIC2025 essentially single handedly shifting future curve towards renewable from fossil. Teslas will never displace more emissions than whole of PRC renewable/ev etc. Elon simply is not in the running for global scale renewable adoption and emission displacement. No one is.
> possible that their CO2 output will increase.
Immaterial if CO2 increases, only useful geopolitical metric is historic per capita emission relative to development level and PRC is low for country blasting through capex heavy capital accumulation phase, i.e. PRC setting standard for low relative per capita emission development. Xi 2012-2026 did ~30% global emissions, ~10-15% global historic for ~20% of population. As long as PRC stays under 20% global historic and maintains above 50th percentile development (use whatever proxy indicator, per capital income PPP etc), they are under emitting / developing efficiently relative to energy use. AKA PRC developing more for less unit of emission. The alternative is not developing which frankly stupid argument/position. For reference US/Europe ~45% historic emission for 10% of global pop. On balance PRC currently grossly under emitting vs historic developmental baseline.
Sure, I guess if we ignore the fact that he's spent and continues to spend unfathomable amounts of money on politicians who are very publicly pro fossil fuels and climate change denialists, and does shit like opening data centers powered by the largest gas generators on the planet.
Tesla makes batteries and battery powered cars, which are indifferent of energy source. They do make some solar panels, but are a minor player not even in the top 10 by shipped capacity worldwide. But chineese companies like LONGi Solar and JinkoSolar aren't "one guy" (even though they ship 50x what Tesla does), so I guess they don't count.
I believed this at one point as well, but that’s not happening anymore. Tesla became what it is while leaning on generous electric car rebates that drastically reduced prices of their cars (especially when leasing), not to mention the millions in carbon credits that other car makers paid to it that was basically another subsidy. Then once Tesla achieved economies of scale and paid off the early fixed costs, he no longer supported subsidies for electric vehicles. That’s pretty classic pull-up-the-ladder-behind-you behavior. The net effect is a drop in overall electric car growth and the scaling back of electric car development by many of Tesla’s competitors.
His competitors already have economies of scale, they are incumbent carmakers that build tens of millions of cars every year.
Volkswagen has a market cap of 40B, why do they need to government subsidies to build a new car?
If you truly care about wide-scale EV adoption above all else, why not advocate for opening up western markets to Chinese EVs? The availability of a 10k EV would do far more for adoption than giving taxpayer money to billion dollar megacorps.
That's the irony of EVs. They're most useful in cities--short driving distances and less emissions in dense areas, but easiest for the consumer to use in the burbs where driving distances are longer and emissions are less of an issue.
I'd say they're most useful in suburbs. You can charge them overnight in your driveway or garage so there's almost no reason not to have one unless you're really focused on the road trip scenario but that's an issue for city cars too.
Even still, people driving from the suburbs to the city are a large part of emissions. People living in the city are already likely to use transit for some trips and so are going to make less emissions. Also for emissions we really shouldn't separate the suburb from the city - they are too close to each other and so one affects the other.
People who live in cities often don't drive that much, so they don't need to charge that often - I drive like 400 km per month, meaning I'd have to charge once a month on most modern EVs.
Also even in the sprawl, people usually don't drive hundreds of kilometers s day.
I'd correct this to be "a smaller sized EV" versus "the smaller size of an EV" as many of the EVs on the market are surprisingly big. Without pointing to the obvious behemoth truck/SUV EVs, my Tesla MY is considerably larger than a lot of CUVs on the market and has a much worse turning radius. What it does do well is stop and start fast meaning I can be more decisive and navigate through messy NYC/BOS traffic with more confidence than in my CRV, and regen braking + having lower "idling" costs does improve its city-profile.
Compared to the uniformity of LLMs, human minds are fascinatingly different from each other. Are voices good, are they bad, or maybe you don't have even an inner monologue? Yet these differences mostly stay hidden and don't stop us from collaborating and understanding each other through empathy.
reply