The Montreal Protocol has not been perfectly adhered to either. China started emitting quite a lot of banned CFCs again from around 2012[1], which didn't get noticed until 2018! By 2020 it had finally stopped[2].
I understand the arguments for Anthropic barrelling ahead while simultaneously advocating for pauses and regulation. I also understand how individuals can desire a slowdown but have good reasons to keep working at an AI org.
But if everyone thinks this way then things continue to escalate and nothing changes, waiting on a consensus that may never come. And always there is the economic incentive that pushes all players to rationalise continuing.
I wish there was more concrete action from the inside. When decisions get too hard to calculate you can always fall back on basic principles. If you think AI is developing too fast, stop developing it. Now you're no longer contributing. If an AI company wants a pause, pause. Set a good example. Maybe others will even follow suit, and they'll look irresponsible if they don't. Let he who chooses to no longer sin put his stone down first.
Ah, that answers something I was wondering about that the article didn't answer, which is how you can lift a car by its tyres without starting already under the tyre and without friction or forcing them to rotate.
Looks like the answer is (at least for this older system), come in from both sides of the tyre with two separate arms, and have each of those arms have their own little wheels on, so as you move inwards it lifts up the tyre and just rolls your mini wheels a little bit. Clever.
This is the video of the 11+ year old system installed in Århus Denmark by Lödige Industries from Germany.
Lödige Industries more recent solution is actually moving the whole pallet you park on, so you can also plug your car into it: https://youtu.be/-_ZxnDrfwGk?t=46
The system in London Gatwick UK is done by Stanley Robotics from France (which was acquired by HL Robotics from South Korea in 2024), but it could be similar.
Sorry yeah, I understood that they're not the same company or system, but I couldn't think of any way it could be done (aside from, as you say, parking already on it) so it was nice to see at least one solution.
Speaking of Douglas Adams, Starship Titanic would be the perfect game to try reimplementing with a modern LLM. It already runs on a primitive chat AI system.
In a way the intelligence of the AI itself allows them to offload responsibility to the AI. As you say, if one was simply writing software that did all this due to some insane programming decisions you'd be in big trouble.
Funny how in their front-and-centre example of placing an ad, the user wants to build a fence, ChatGPT responds with instructions on how to build a fence, but the ad suggests a small pre-made privacy panel.
Why make your fake example show a failed ad placement? You could have shown anything!
Same I was expecting to see the materials all ready to be purchased at Home Depot, that would actually be useful. One click buy all the stuff we just talked about.
Ah, but that’s something different. “Agentic commerce”: using agents to buy things. I suspect there’s a different team working on monetization via affiliate programs, and it’d be early to let people just buy their way into it at CPM/CPC rates.
Honestly they could implement both of these things. Help the user DO an action that requires a purchase (referral link, or pay to be suggested source) and advertise on related searches.
That stood out to me as well, of all the examples to use, getting a blind suggestion without any information other than "I want to build a fence" is ridiculous, who would ever want this?
It's just a funny little thing but I love how in a world of "megapixel" and even "gigapixel" space images we have here a "multipixel" imaging of planets, due to achieving a resolution of several pixels.
Though the 25km resolution mentioned actually sounds far, far better than the very pixellated planet in the "artist’s depiction". I suppose it depends how small and far away the planet is.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00360-0
reply