In the middle of the presentation, Elon mentioned that people were asking for a Pickup truck so they built a smaller version of a pickup truck. The one you linked to is that. They aren't taking orders for it.
> but has access to things I don't even have in a state school by virtue of being a sharp high schooler in Palo Alto, much less when I was in high school.
and then you go on to say
> I more mean the hardware access part - at 15 my parents would have never given me their debit card to spend hundreds of dollars on GCP GPUs - good luck training GANs on a laptop CPU!
That has literally nothing to do with location as you seem to allude to in the earlier post. It has nothing to do with the spoils of an economy being distributed unequally. Maybe if the hardware was only accessible in certain parts of the country, sure your point makes sense. But anybody with money could've bought it.
So your post now reads as "I'm going to blame me not achieving as much as Kevin on my parents for not spending money on me when I was young."
That article was encouraging, if anything. It shows exactly how available educational resources to the field of AI have become that a 15-year old can have access to them and make significant progress. it shows if you take initiative, you can actually go ahead and get things done.
> That has literally nothing to do with location as you seem to allude to in the earlier post. It has nothing to do with the spoils of an economy being distributed unequally
Palo Alto is one of the wealthiest cities in the country.
And this is not was I was replying to. Gp was comparing this to a chargeback.
But now that you bring up governance, bitcoin is essentially being steered by a handful of mining pools, not by loosely knit community of private individuals :)
Yea I noticed that when I read it. I hate it when they do that. It's sorta click-baity, but that's not the right word as you're already reading the article. I guess misleading for .. dramatic effect? Stupid effect?
Chump change for sure. But most of his net worth will prob be tied up in Tesla and SpaceX for a while. That $15B net worth number seems low actually. Forbes doesn't specify what they estimate his SpaceX stake at. Nor how much he has outside of those two stakes.
A little over 20% of Tesla is around $11B. A little over 50% of SpaceX is $7B to $8B (SpaceX hasn't been given a valuation for almost two years now). That's already close to $20B.
Do you think speculation on things that are an inferential step[1](or a couple of steps) away from things you currently know could be a gauge of a person's innate intelligence?
Intelligence is required to make inferences. Assuming a common starting ground, a person who could make the most logical inferences from it to explain a result would suggest that he's smarter. I do not claim to say a person who makes 10 good points is less smart than someone who makes 11 good points. But he surely you can agree that a person who is able to make 0 inferences is likelier to be less intelligent than someone who makes a hundred.
> Do you think speculation on things that are an inferential step[1](or a couple of steps) away from things you currently know could be a gauge of a person's innate intelligence?
No, I do not. It introduces a large capacity for things to go wrong, and it is very difficult for the interviewer to separate themselves from process. Speculative development is a road marked by dozens or hundreds of failed efforts before you hit on success. Either the interviewee happens to hit upon one of the few "correct" answers in the time available -- password guessing -- or some tolerance of wrong answers is to be accepted. But it is quite difficult to differentiate bad speculation from fruitless speculation, in a way that usefully differentiates candidates based on capability.
I think it's the author's fault for switching between probabilities and odds and the readers for not recognizing the switch.
"Thus A’s chance of being condemned remains twice that of being pardoned."
When he says this, he is talking of odds of 2:1 and therefore, the probability of not being condemned is 1/1+2 = 1/3
Also when he says "Because, unlike in Monty Hall, the intuitive judgment is the correct one in Mosteller’s puzzle." He means the intuitive judgment that 1/2 is incorrect.
I was extremely confused the first 2-3 times I read it and kept trying to understand the author's viewpoint because everything other than these two statement seemed to make sense. At least I wasn't the only one.
I'm not sure how I would feel about the absence of steering wheels and pedals within their cars.
Tesla's auto-pilot can be over-ridden due to the presence of the steering wheels and the pedals. But in a car that has none, you're not in control. And that, is scary no matter how you look at it.
