0x3f

> AGI is very close

Based on? Or are you just quoting Anthropic here?

Its existence is possible.

Those gains are arch based, data quality based, etc. Scaling laws only relate to data volume and compute, holding other factors constant.

All the curves have been levelling off as expected. Not really sure what you're talking about.

Based on a glance at their other comments: not satire.

Perhaps, but I'd venture the ear of the regime is even more valuable.

But nobody is going to just gift him the same valuation on the next company. It's not like his execution is OpenAI's moat right now. So where would he be going that's a better deal for him?

Well we were talking about power and reputation and being well-known and all that. Being more ubiquitous is surely a big part of that. GP seems to think Anthropic is doing better because of the DoD thing. In my estimation, 90% of people do not care about that at all.

It's because they're really good at the kind of busywork the average white collar job requires. Most people are out there writing documents and making presentations. Only when you use them for actual complexity does the shortfall become clear.

OpenAI has ~30x the userbase of Anthropic.

But climbing a hill does make you closer to the moon. There's nothing wrong with incremental progress towards a goal, assuming this is a goal for the free-market people.

Also, I'm not sure a free market is technology-free per se. What you're talking about is specifically ancap-like, but most free market frameworks involve a state actor that should (among other things) not allow for itself to be weaponized against other market participants.

Like the paradox of tolerance, you can't tolerate a free market for bribing your way to benefit from the state's monopoly on violence. I don't think the existence of this paradox destroys the value of free markets or tolerance.

Stalin to Kruschev was in a very different context. I don't see any way that Russia's next leader is someone cuddlier, unless through some forcing event.

Right, those are the current technologies we have to make markets work in a particular way. They don't preclude other technologies which work with freer markets.

Like there's a whole zoo of healthcare provision approaches, for example. Single payer can work fine (ala Norway), but so can Bismarck (ala Switzerland). The latter is a technological architecture that _enables_ similar or better outcomes, while being closer to a fully market-based approach.

> It just sounds like he was just fine leaving his family for a job.

Or... maybe he needs income to exist.

I'm not sure I really understand. What do you mean by "never gonna work"? Because markets obviously do largely work, despite the fact that people are not perfectly rational and there are other inefficiencies at the edges. They have their degenerate cases, of course, but I don't think anyone would say markets "don't work" in general.

Most successful economies are largely market-based, as things stand today. Even the successful command economies (i.e. China) use markets extensively.

Unless you mean perfectly free markets will never be perfect resource allocators. Well yes, perhaps, but what does that matter if there's no perfect solution? The nudges required to 'fix' markets are a form of technology, as discussed. As such, it either exists and is effective or not.

The EU has a hard time agreeing how to do anything, but the net effect for Russia seems about the same either way. If the 'freezing' lasts forever, what is the practical difference from the Russian perspective?

To me frozen and seized are roughly interchangeable and mean, minimally, a temporary capture of control of an asset. Although maybe there's some strict legal difference I'm not aware of, I'm not sure there's much practical difference from the Russian PoV.

Confiscation would be e.g. definitively taking control and disposing of it, the proceeds going in to the general funds of the relevant country.

Sure he might want to do that, but I think his behavior shows he's still beholden to the markets to a large degree. A lot of his (self?) image is tied into 'economic performance', rightly or wrongly.

I'm not sure this is true. What you're describing is the local optimum problem. Yes, the local optimum is better if you can't push through to a better one, of course. And heading merely 'towards' the better optimum often makes things immediately worse. But that doesn't make the better optima worthless, or ever-unreachable.

It seems a bit like saying humans will never fly. It's a question of technology level, in the sense that governance is a form of economic technology. Which is what leaves it open to people saying it can be done better.

The best solution changes over time, essentially. It's a question of fitness to the current context.

The guy only releases bad news when the markets are closed to avoid some minor corrections. I doubt he's about to crash the gold market.

Not really Trump-specific is it, given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets. Maybe they just realized how easy that was and that nobody is going to war over it.

In the UK, they split the infra provider (Openreach) from the consumer company (BT). So it's no longer BT giving access to the other providers.

In theory, BT has no special access to the infra at all, and they're on a level playing field with other providers.

That may not be perfectly true in practice, but my impression is there are no large differences between providers on the same infra. Choosing between providers mostly comes down to packaging and customer service in the end.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Is your contention that we _have_ achieved some pure form of free markets or Communism?

Perhaps you won't be able to exist in private without a smart phone. Or there will be some technology beyond a smartphone that you can't exist without.

It's funny because this is also the exact German response for when your neighbour has an unsanctioned BBQ.

> So's "we don't have natural rights".

That's the null hypothesis. There are no teapots orbiting the sun, either.

We're all essentially here under the goal of making non-boring statements for each other, yes. That is the general purpose of an online forum.

Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply assertions. Not supported by anything else. Doesn't really matter who is asserting them. The argument takes the same form, and is equally bunk.

Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass.

The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid.