> Nonsense, but you clearly either haven't read my replies or don't understand that capitalism requires growth while some other economic systems don't. Even 1% growth per year is exponential growth and quickly will run…
If my system requires infinity growth then yours also does require infinite resources by the logic outlines above. If you agree that your system does not require infinite resources because we should be talking only at…
> That's an absurd argument, though. Yes, exactly! Talking about infinite growth or infinite existence is really stupid and that’s my point!
You can’t reach steady state in ANY economic system because you can’t have 100% efficiency, that’s basic thermodynamics. Resources will keep decreasing no matter what you do. Hence argument about infinite growth is…
It appears that parent comment believes that there’s infinite amount of food and once you degrowth you will never run out of it.
> But the claim must be that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy. Yes, if you actually mean infinite growth it’s true. And that’s what I find absurd - why would you care about infinite…
Because 1) growth is not directly linked to resources and the richer country is the less growth depends on resource-intensive areas such as farming or industry; 2) it’s absurd to think we are at the stage of growth…
> The economic system itself is incompatible with the physical reality of a finite planet. „Infinite growth is impossible on planet with finite resources” is nice buzzphrase, but upon closer inspection it makes…
That's really bad way of thinking. You should read his articles about AI and then decide if he's shilling or actually his use cases make sense and actually save time. In my opinion it's the second option. I'm researcher…
Tao is not an expert in math research? That's a really high bar then.
What's your definition of AGI?
Typical pure-math linear algebra course has to cover so much material that there's really no time for applications! That's why applied math is typically separate track.
Please read the comment I’m replying to.
> Anyone pointing out the obvious - that peer review is broken and science hasn't worked in 40 years - is at best a flat Earther. Yes, if someone claims that science hasn't worked (what does it even mean?) for 40 years…
The usual way of doing things is completely broken system.
In the making I'm sure. It's really naive to think that jet engine is challenge that won't be overcome.
Isn't having universities in global top10 actual quality?
Isn't China currently among the leaders of material science with lots of top 10 universities located in China? [0] (in rankings that do not incorporate prestige but actual scientific output) [0]…
How is it worse compared with workers that are currently employed by the oligarch class? It's not like they don't have people doing menial work for them right now. And automation of menial work is a good thing!
Amazing mate, literally everything you wrote is wrong, including labeling me as left wing, keep it up!
How is it possible? You can't diagnose tuberculosis just based on imaging and tuberculosis hospital has to know that!
> This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like…
Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid…
Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single…
> Nonsense, but you clearly either haven't read my replies or don't understand that capitalism requires growth while some other economic systems don't. Even 1% growth per year is exponential growth and quickly will run…
If my system requires infinity growth then yours also does require infinite resources by the logic outlines above. If you agree that your system does not require infinite resources because we should be talking only at…
> That's an absurd argument, though. Yes, exactly! Talking about infinite growth or infinite existence is really stupid and that’s my point!
You can’t reach steady state in ANY economic system because you can’t have 100% efficiency, that’s basic thermodynamics. Resources will keep decreasing no matter what you do. Hence argument about infinite growth is…
It appears that parent comment believes that there’s infinite amount of food and once you degrowth you will never run out of it.
> But the claim must be that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy. Yes, if you actually mean infinite growth it’s true. And that’s what I find absurd - why would you care about infinite…
Because 1) growth is not directly linked to resources and the richer country is the less growth depends on resource-intensive areas such as farming or industry; 2) it’s absurd to think we are at the stage of growth…
> The economic system itself is incompatible with the physical reality of a finite planet. „Infinite growth is impossible on planet with finite resources” is nice buzzphrase, but upon closer inspection it makes…
That's really bad way of thinking. You should read his articles about AI and then decide if he's shilling or actually his use cases make sense and actually save time. In my opinion it's the second option. I'm researcher…
Tao is not an expert in math research? That's a really high bar then.
What's your definition of AGI?
Typical pure-math linear algebra course has to cover so much material that there's really no time for applications! That's why applied math is typically separate track.
Please read the comment I’m replying to.
> Anyone pointing out the obvious - that peer review is broken and science hasn't worked in 40 years - is at best a flat Earther. Yes, if someone claims that science hasn't worked (what does it even mean?) for 40 years…
The usual way of doing things is completely broken system.
In the making I'm sure. It's really naive to think that jet engine is challenge that won't be overcome.
Isn't having universities in global top10 actual quality?
Isn't China currently among the leaders of material science with lots of top 10 universities located in China? [0] (in rankings that do not incorporate prestige but actual scientific output) [0]…
How is it worse compared with workers that are currently employed by the oligarch class? It's not like they don't have people doing menial work for them right now. And automation of menial work is a good thing!
Amazing mate, literally everything you wrote is wrong, including labeling me as left wing, keep it up!
How is it possible? You can't diagnose tuberculosis just based on imaging and tuberculosis hospital has to know that!
> This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like…
Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid…
Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single…