MichaelZuo

This doesn’t seem to follow? No “control” is needed, a quid quo pro is more than sufficient.

The real question is why is the median Apple decision maker circa 2026 vastly more short term greedy than the median Apple decision maker circa 2012?

To be fair even if they could build a 10x larger e-ink panel factory it’s uncertain if they could shave costs by more than maybe 40% to 50% per panel.

And it’s very questionable whether there is genuinely 10x more latent annual demand for e-ink panels at that still not cheap price point.

Of course they have ulterior motives to push the message that it can replace high quality human artists, even though that would be ridiculous under any serious analysis.

That doesnt mean you have to believe them.

I think the cost per transistor has gone slightly upwards, it bottomed out a few years ago.

Most people dont read the fine print on the back of gift cards. So I can easily see someone never running into a situation where it’s actually explained that is not allowed face to face.

Are you confused? The parent claimed 4G was very expensive infrastructure.

Whereas reality showed 4G was so cheap that major telecoms decided to skip over 3G entirely.

Yeah avoiding all mention of the huge financial incentives that may push for “pacing the frontier” makes it seem like the opposite of a credibility boost for these firms.

It seems damaging since most folks (who lack insider knowledge) will naturally wonder if it’s due to plateauing performance per $ or some other non “alignment” reason.

This doesnt seem to match reality?

e.g. Notably several major carriers in India skipped 3G entirely and went to 4G directly because it was cheaper per subscriber. Which implies less expensive equipment per unit performance?

Wasnt this known by everyone who cared to pay attention?

It practically became a joke about how a huge amount of the training data for GPT-4 was bottom of the barrel reddit vomit and obvious bot spam. Leading to many bizarre edge cases.

What do you think was the root cause?

The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?

Standard psychology says they should be highly sensitive to status loss, but it almost seems the opposite.

Yeah it would be more surprising if they didn’t have a mandatory expensive program considering how much more complex it is than normal roofing stuff.

From what I heard, the shakedown of the Swiss government over the F35 contract couldn’t have happened without the active support of many actors in the beltway.

So it seems sensible for them to doubt the intentions of many hundreds of decision makers, not just a single person.

I think the steel tube example already shows that such a “game” would already be unplayable for even the 99.9th percentile HN reader.

For example, it would likely take dozens to hundreds of hours of study focused on steel tubes alone due to the very high dimensionality of real world things. And assuming a minimal forgetting rate of 1 fact for every 1000 facts after every 100 hours awake, they would pretty much be stuck forever on just the relatively simple goods.

Maybe a game with hundreds of times fewer dimensions then the real world, but then it might as well be pure fantasy anyways.

Did you log onto the wrong account?

Your posting from a rando pseudonym account on HN, as far as I can tell. It’s not even possible for passing readers (including me) to determine who is actually behind it…

So who would I be “flaming”?

Plus given the nonsensical claim, it wouldn’t even make sense for me to do anything other than point that out.

Yes indirectly… it doesnt directly determine whether you literally see things phasing through walls or not?

Did you not read the article?

Judging based on where nations put their diplomatic money, pretty much every major nation in the world (except maybe Japan) has a negative outlook for the USA.

Even the UK is spending a lot to upgrade their embassy in Beijing.

DNA operates on a much lower level than large scale macro behavior such as 3cm to 30cm tall beings visually phasing through walls, or not… unless you think DNA does somehow directly affect it?

Yeah idk what OpenAI was thinking. Just going off their own claims… OpenAI must be filled with bozos to not be able to utilize their own supposed product capabilities…

Most are paying less than a fifth of the cost for a PC nowadays, inflation adjusted, compared to 1981.

Those paying equivalent prices or higher for a mid spec computer do get much higher quality documentation, such as high end Toughbooks.

Considering how much more expensive woodcutting and printing were in the early 1500s… couldn’t he have just built an actual tirumphal arch (albeit simplified) with that money?

Deutche Bank I imagine is doing this because a significant fraction of their customers literally want to park their money in yuan?

If it was some rounding error they wouldn’t have bothered spending money to set it up and get all the clearances.

Yeah if it’s literally 90%+ people report the same thing… that seems impossible to explain even with a novel psychoactive substance…

How can chemical compounds contain an entire script of what the little people can and cannot do?

Representing anyone in a court room by definition carries liability risks, because the judge can punish the lawyer unilaterally, but not the AI.

If errors of over half a typical screwhole width are so common, why has it never been noticed before and reported on?

That seems literally impossible to not notice for years on end.

Noctua doesnt seem like they would put up fake data either… so does that imply the rest of the industry and supply chain are full of fakers?

I don’t see how that helps?

A lawyer isn’t going to sign on to take liability risk unless they spend quite a lot of time analyzing the AI’s outputs for possible blunders?

So it structurally can’t cost significantly less.

Spec committees arent rigid automatons, they can clearly decide on say USB Type C-123 for practical implementation if they chose to.

Obviously there is some latent risk in choosing a career anywhere, that the demand disappears. There can’t literally be zero risk of structural demand changes.

So? Is there a hard limit on just one “Type” in the formal name?