HN:

Also - using soylent, oculus and crypto to paint Andreesen as a bad investor (0 for 3 as he says) is a weird take. Come on - do better if your going to try and take my time.

Reading comprehension is hard. The article actually says “Zero for three when it comes to picking useful inventions to reorder life as we know it, that is to say, though at no apparent cost to his power or net worth.” It’s saying he’s a good investor in the sense of making money, but a bad investor in the sense of picking investments that change the world. Rather telling that the commenter can’t seem to distinguish between the two.

Good article, excited for part 2.

me when the machine specifically designed to pass the turing test passes the turing test

If you can design a model that spits out self-aware-sounding things after not having been trained on a large corpus of human text, then I’ll bite. Until then, it’s crazy that anybody who knows anything about how current models are trained accepts the idea that it’s anything other than a stochastic parrot.

Glad that the article included a good amount of dissenting opinion, highlighting this one from Margaret Mitchell: “I think we can agree that systems that can manipulate shouldn’t be designed to present themselves as having feelings, goals, dreams, aspirations.”

Cool tech. We should probably set it on fire.

delivering lectures at both UATX and Peterson’s forthcoming Peterson Academy

I thought I was terminally online but clearly I’ve missed something, his what now