That’s not the Turing Test; it’s just vaguely related. The Turing Test is an interactive party game of persuasion and deception, sort of like playing a werewolves versus villagers game. Almost nobody actually plays the game.

Also, the skill of the human opponents matters. There’s a difference between testing a chess bot against randomly selected college undergrads versus chess grandmasters.

Just like jailbreaks are not hard to find, figuring out exploits to get LLM’s to reveal themselves probably wouldn’t be that hard? But to even play the game at all, someone would need to train LLM’s that don’t immediately admit that they’re bots.

I think that, much like LLM’s are specifically trained to be good at coding and good at being agents, we’re going to need better benchmarks for CAD and spatial reasoning so the AI labs can grind on them.

A good start would be getting image generators to understand instructions like “move the table three feet to the left.”

I don’t think it’s real time? The videos were likely taken previously.

It seems kind of odd that the Go community doesn't have a commonly-used List[T] type now that generics allow for one. I suppose passing a growable list around isn't that common.

For an example of a language feature that looks kind of like standard object-oriented inheritance, but isn’t, check out “struct embedding” in Go. Struct embedding gives you the syntax of inheritance and you can even override methods, but for internal self-calls, methods don’t get overridden. (If you wanted to allow that, you’d need to add function pointers or an interface to the struct.)

I hope to see it because I want to see their real numbers. If I were into gambling, I'd take the opposite side of that bet.

This seems to be almost purely bandwagon value, like preferring Coca-Cola to some other drink. There are other blockchains that are better technically along a bunch of dimensions, but they don't have the mindshare.

Bitcoin is probably unkillable. Even if were to crash, it won't be hard to round up enough true believers to boost it up again. But it's technically stagnant.

True, but then so is a lot of "tech". There were certainly, at least equivalent, social applications before and all throughout Facebooks dominance, but like Bitcoin the network effect becomes primary, after a minimum feature set.

For Bitcoin, it doesn't exactly seem to be a network effect? It's not like choosing a chat app because that's what your friends use.

Many other cryptocurrencies are popular enough to be easily tradable and have features to make them work better for trade. Also, you can speculate on different cryptocurrencies than your friends do.

Technically stagnant is a good thing; I'd prefer the term technically mature. It's accomplished what it set out to do, which is to be a decentralized, anonymous form of digital currency.

The only thing that MIGHT kill it is if governments stopped printing money.

Maybe it will inspire others?

This is money flowing from rich people to (mostly) not-rich children. Although the mechanism is different, the money seems to flowing in the same direction you’re hoping for?

It would be more accurate to say that there are rich people on both sides. For example, George Washington was the richest man in America at the time.