Let me explain again why I said "disruptive" rather than "substantial"：the current "embodied artificial intelligence" still uses 19th-century numerical methods (the Adams-Bashforth integration method from 1883 and the Runge method from 1895) to represent time frames + three-dimensional space calculations to approximate four-dimensional spacetime (relativistic covariance has proven that spacetime is an integrated whole, i.e., four-dimensional spacetime). I will release more specific code later - you might wonder, don't the "scientists" at those big companies know about this? The answer is that they do know, and I will also release the reasons later, which will definitely surprise you!
While 'substantive' would mean major progress within the current framework, I’m predicting a shift that subverts the current foundational assumptions of robotics.
Right now, we treat time as a secondary sequence—an 'add-on' to 3D space. Moving to a unified spacetime architecture isn't just a big improvement; it fundamentally undermines the discrete-frame logic that almost all current CV and RL models are built upon. It’s 'subversive' because it requires us to unlearn the way we’ve been processing motion for the last decade.
Allegedly AI recently discovered vulnerabilities in React Server that were/are being exploited on unpatched systems, so that's subversive, and we might expect a lot more of it before it gets better.
This is a pretty weird take in a HN submission about modern agricultural practices causing drought in urban Iran. Like, the problem you're suggesting is already happening, right now, except it is water related not about food.
When I lived in an apartment with no washer I got sick of using the laundrymat because it was expensive and kind of nasty. So I set up my own washing setup after some research.
I got something called a "breathing washer" which looks kind of like a toilet plunger and a big tote which I put in the bathtub for use. These breathing washers work really well and in my opinion get your clothes much cleaner than agitating and spinning.
Then I got something called a "spin dryer" that is basically a small centrifuge that spins a lot faster than a regular washing machine and leaves fabrics like light polyester nearly dry coming out.
Finally I got an inflatable plugin dryer.
This setup was more work than a regular washing machine but maybe not more work than bundling up clothes and taking to the laundrymat and sitting there for an hour or two. One thing I really liked about it was short time to process. I could have washed and dried clothes much faster than a conventional washer/dryer setup.
I've been in a house for a long time now and admittedly having a washer and dryer is much nicer and less work, but that setup was acceptable and much better than laundromats for whatever it's worth if someone is in a similar situation.
Borlaug was a very important figure in global food security but he was a plant breeder, not the guy(s) who figured out how to fix nitrogen from the air into fertilizer. Nitrogen people were Haber and Bosch.
Millions of probably do owe their very existence to these men though, agree with that.
However part of me (maybe a slightly misanthropic part?) wonders if it might be a bit like feeding stray cats, and now we have a huge herd of cats that are rapidly outstripping the ultimate carrying capacity of their environment and it doesn't end well. But since I'm one of the cats, I say we just go with it and see what happens.
If it's stuff I have have been doing for years and isn't terribly complex I've found its generally quick to skim review. I don't need to read every line I can glance at it, know it's a loop and why, a function call or whatever. If I see something unusual I take that as an opportunity to learn.
I've seen LLMs write some really bad code a few times lately it seems almost worse than what they were doing 6 or 8 months ago. Could be my imagination but it seems that way.
That is also how things wind down and progress ceases and civilizations decay. You need a measure of conflict and difference to move things forward.
I do agree however this needs to be controlled and within bounds so as not to be totally destructive and also because you can't get anywhere with everyone pulling in different directions.
In evolutionary terms, variation is the basis for natural selection. You have no variation then you have nothing to select from.
Cheapness implies volume which we are already seeing. Volume implies less impact per piece because there are only so many total view hours available.
Stated another way, the more junk that gets churned out, the less people will take a particular piece of junk seriously.
And if they churn out too much junk (especially obvious manipulative falsehoods) people will have little choice but to de-facto regard the entire body of output as junk. Similar to how many people feel about modern mainstream media (correctly or not it's how many feel) and for the same reasons.
It's just the popular wisdom these days. Companies tend to deprioritize hiring engineers in their 40s, especially if their overspecialized. At face value, Companies want high-energy 20-somethings that they can mold into their specialty. More likely, they know that 20-somethings expect a far smaller salary.
reply