I can’t believe how little news coverage there has been about this. Seeing that thing land was probably the most impressive thing I’ve ever seen.

It wasn’t the first starship launch but it was the first where they tried to land onto the chopsticks. Last time I believe they simulated the same thing but landed in the ocean instead. They did get just one try with this particular rocket since if it was unsuccesfull the rocket would now be in a million pieces.

That’s not a claim, it’s the name of the company. I’m not aware of Altman being the one who even came up with it.

What does?

How dare you imply that humans just make shit up when they don’t know the truth

…or you can just keep watching videos from human creators like you have done so far. If the content you’re consuming is already the kind that’s difficult to tell from AI in the first place then not much will change.

What’s an example of a claim Altman has made that you’d consider bullshit?

No wonder you guys are so damn stressed if you really think climate change is literally going to end human existence on earth.

To me, being an intellectual doesn’t necessarily mean someone is exceptionally smart in the traditional sense. I’ve always taken it to mean a person who can take a few steps back and dispassionately, honestly evaluate things from a distance. It describes how they think, not what they think.

I listen to a lot of podcasts with guests/hosts I’d consider intellectuals, and I’ve often found that, given the same information, these people tend to land on the same or similar conclusions on unrelated topics. Another common trait of an intellectual is that their ideas don’t map neatly onto a political ideology. They don’t adopt ideas wholesale but instead form opinions on different subjects individually. Maybe I’m talking about intellectual honesty now, which might be slightly different, but that’s my take on it. I remember Sean Carroll defining intellectualism along these lines on an old podcast, and it resonated with me.

There have been two recent events that, in my view, serve as good tests of a person’s intellectual honesty. First was the Trump assassination attempt. One of the thinkers I admire most is also one of the most anti-Trump people I know, but I was confident they’d still condemn political violence like this, which they did. The second event was just a few days ago: the landing of the Starship 1st stage. If a person is so blinded by their hatred of Musk that they can’t admit how impressive that was, then I don’t consider them an intellectually honest thinker.

It’s a common tactic of news outlets to choose bad pictures of people they’re against and good pictures of people they’re for. Once you see it, it cannot be unseen.

There’s not? Why?

There was 50 years worth of oil left 20 years ago too

That was the most impressive thing I think I’ve ever seen

The current AI discussion I’m reading online has eerie similarities to the debate about legalizing cannabis 15 years ago. One side praises it as a solution to all of society’s problems, while the other sees it as the devil’s lettuce. Unsurprisingly, both sides were wrong, and the same will probably apply to AI. It’ll likely turn out that the more dispassionate people in the middle, who are neither strongly for nor against it, will be the ones who had the most accurate view on it.

Just slapping on a lidar doesn’t simply solve that issue for you either. Making out individual objects from the point cloud data is equally difficult plus you’re then having to deal with cameras too because Waymo has both. I don’t see how you imagine having Lidar and cameras would be easier to deal with than just cameras.

Also. Tesla already has more or less solved this issue. FSD works just fine with cameras only and new HW4 models have radar too.

The S&P500 index doesn’t speculate about whether a company’s stock is over- or underpriced. It’s a market-cap-weighted index, meaning the weight of companies like Tesla is based on their market value, not an estimation of their future performance. Speculating about whether a stock is overvalued is something actively managed funds do, but the S&P500 is designed to passively reflect the largest U.S. companies based on size.

Tesla is 1.44% of S&P500. They don’t pick the companies onto their index based on emotions. Hopefully you’ve shorted them like crazy since you’re so sure about them going bust.

What a certain stock does within days of a big announcement like this is one of the most meaningless things to write news articles about. In a month, the value is usually back to where it was, and that’s what nobody ever writes about.

A few months ago, the S&P 500 dipped, and there were countless articles about whether investors should panic. Not only is it back to normal now, but it’s even higher than before.

No, and neither are your eyes, but you can still see the world in 3D.

You can use normal cameras to create 3D images by placing two cameras next to each other and creating a stereogram. Alternatively, you can do this with just one camera by taking a photo, moving it slightly, and then taking another photo - exactly what cameras in a moving vehicle are doing all the time. Objects closer to the camera move differently than the background. If you have a billboard with a person on it, the background in that picture moves differently relative to the person than the background behind an actual person would.

A lidar alone can’t do that. It’ll just build a 3D point cloud. You still need software to detect the individual objects in there and that’s easier said than done. So far Tesla seems to be achieving this just fine by using cameras alone. Human eyes can tell the difference between an actual person and a picture of a person too. I don’t see how this is supposed to be somethin you can’t do with just cameras.