与「SUPERPOWER」相关的搜索结果

🚨 THIS IS GOING TO BREAK THE INTERNET! Elon Musk just dropped Neuralink's craziest bombshell: “In the next 6 to 12 months, we're going to implant the first vision devices. Even if you're 100% blind from birth, we're going to write directly to your visual cortex… and you're going to see.” “And that's just the beginning. In the long term, you'll have ultra-HD resolution and real superpowers: you'll see in infrared, ultraviolet, and even radar. Literally like a superhero.” The future is no longer science fiction. It's Neuralink.

TRUMP: "AI is probably the biggest thing anybody's ever seen, and whoever wins that race is probably going to win, period." President Trump says his goal is for America to "dominate the future" and be the "number one superpower" in AI.

Elon Musk: "In the next 6 to 12 months, we’ll be doing our first implants for vision, where even if somebody is completely blind, we can write directly to the visual cortex." "Long term, you would have very high resolution and be able to see multispectral wavelengths... you could see in infrared, ultraviolet, radar. It's like a superpower situation."

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.

Codex 吞了桌面版 ChatGPT 之后，给你一份避坑指南。 Codex 更新了，名字变成了 ChatGPT。GPT 5.6 全面开放了，耐用不耐用的，咱先重置几次再说。另外，Codex 版 ChatGPT 也多个 Work 的模式，其实之前这些功能用户也能用，现在相当于把一堆办公插件给你做了工程化，吸引更多的知识工作者使用（非开发者/Viber）。 OpenAI 这套连招动静真不小，在更新迁移的过程里，还有几个坑。 说 Codex 和 ChatGPT 合体，其实是 Codex 吞掉了桌面端的 ChatGPT，ChatGPT 保留了一个 Chat 的入口，还有个“已安排”。新增了上次介绍过的 站点 功能，也就是说，你可以直接在 Codex（ChatGPT）里建站了。 Codex 和 ChatGPT 的更新逻辑很复杂，如果你只是 ChatGTP 桌面版用户（不用 Codex），那么你依然在使用经典的 ChatGPT，更新 App 也不会更新成 Codex 版本的 ChatGPT。 如果你同时是 ChatGPT 和 Codex 用户，Codex 更新后你将有一个 Codex 版本的 ChatGPT，多了一个 ChatGPT 经典版。 如果你只用 Codex，更新后你将得到一个 Codex 版本的 ChatGPT。 很多媒体说，Codex 成超级应用了，其实是瞎扯的事儿。Codex 只是使用了 ChatGPT 桌面版的名字，然后塞进去一个聊天的入口。ChatGPT 的十亿用户在哪用这个工具？在移动端。 这种合并更多是为了吸引知识工作者，但做法实在是太糙了。产品经理二爷表示，这就像家里有一个拉货的车，一个代步车。然后车厂说，给你一个全新的交通工具，合二为一，既能装又能拉还轻便能代步。满怀期待，到手打开一看，在大货车里放了一辆电动车，嗷嚎。 这次更新还放进了一个 Work 模式，这是学习 Claude Work 上瘾了。Codex 从编程工具，延展到通用 Agent，故事更大了。ChatGPT Work 定位为能跨应用、文件和工作流执行任务的 Agent，可以生成文档、表格、幻灯片、网页应用，并可执行长时间项目。 GPT 5.6 其实是广大 Viber 最期待的，但那个消耗也是真的快，你用 sol ultra，10 分钟的任务能烧完 5 小时额度，说明了啥，你那点任务，根本不需要那么高的智能。 说几个坑： 坑一，你更新之后，会发现 Codex 这个 Cli 工具有可能消失，需要重新安装一下。 坑二，如果你更新 Codex 的同时，ChatGPT 也开着，这时候你会发现 Codex 消失了，ChatGPT 还是经典版，非常神奇。这时候要去 Codex 官网下载 ChatGPT.dmg，重装有救，但拧巴。 坑三，聊天会话里多了个 Add to task 功能，别用，一用就卡死，必须重启才行。等着修复吧。 坑四，之前安装的 superpowers（plugins）也需要重新装。 坑五，之前的自动化任务全部暂停，需要重新启动…… 以上坑你可能遇不到，也可能遇到，没遇到就好好用吧。

Superpowers 6.0 正式发布：Fable 5 加持。作为一套遵循完整软件开发方法论的技能与指令组合，Superpowers 适配 CC、Codex 等多类 Agent。新版运行速度提升 50%，Token 消耗降低 60%，高效依旧高质。

Superpowers 6.0版本发版：Fable 5加成 Superpowers是一套技能和指令组合，遵循完整的软件开发方法论，适用于CC、Codex等各种Agent。 6.0版本经过Fable 5优化，运行速度大幅提升50%，并且消耗的Token减少60%，同时还能保持同样高质量的输出结果。官方团队专门发了一篇博客来介绍Fable 5如何优化Superpowers。 博客地址： Github：

博客更新: 为什么我用mattpocock/skills替代了superpowers 最近我用@mattpocockuk 的skills替代了之前在用的obra/superpowers，本文是我的一些想法。