The drivers are still contractors and get very little of the ride money unless demand is high. Uber has been very successful at legislating carveouts for rideshare drivers to protect its margins.
2,113 karma · joined September 8, 2020
This generation of frontier models is "good enough." At some point, the Chinese labs will get to where the Americans are right now, they'll race to the bottom, and we will actually see what proliferation of AI looks like.
If Anthropic wants to be a trillion dollar company, they need to make revenue like Google or Apple do. Both of them have near monopolies, Anthropic is only getting further and further away as time goes on.
Of course they're gonna complain until they either figure out a better plan or accept a new valuation which is high but not spectacular.
I think copyright and patents made sense, make sense, and will continue to make sense, but I also think that as the pace of development accelerates the durations for both need to reduce. The products of intellectual work are valuable and it should be worth investing lots of time and effort into producing it - they just shouldn't be worth that much.
It's worth noting in your case that no determination of copyright was actually made by a court (well, almost: a court ruled that the monkey definitely didn't have copyright and that even if it did they wouldn't make PETA its guardian).
Some opinions were issued but those are non-binding and eventually the photographer gave up because litigating copyright is expensive.
It's entirely possible for AI output to be copyrighted if it meets the requirements; prompting an AI takes some skill.
The completions they provide are generally internally consistent. We're at the point where they can produce proofs that eluded human mathematicians for centuries. VLMs and self driving cars can handle ambiguity and run safely in a variety of situations.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck maybe it just makes sense to call it a duck and put off the philosophy for when it might make a difference.
I find that forcing the elderly out of multimillion dollar homes and into apartments or even smaller homes is infinitely preferable to the human catastrophe plainly obvious on the streets of LA and SF.
IMO this is a much more fair system than just saying "lol no taxes on the elderly."
If you are complaining and what "the people" want, you have to understand that they are actually pretty well taken care of in the US.
The thing that produces competitive industries is requiring them to compete globally. That's how Chinese cars got good (Tesla joint venture -> independent Chinese Tesla -> competitive domestic companies).
There are two main reasons why the EU struggles to produce strong text companies are, IMO:
1. EU laws and regulations are very burdensome and cover everything from employees to packaging waste.
2. There is not enough capital that gets invested in EU tech companies to pay high tech salaries, again largely driven by more restrictive financial rules.
The result of these two is that European engineers tend to leave for the US, and European companies struggle to grow to American size.
Around 70% of American billionaires made their money themselves, while in the EU a similar share inherited it. Despite all the talk about social mobility in Europe being better than in the US, the truth is that the ultrawealthy in Europe have created a regulatory environment which makes it nearly impossible for real competition to exist.
Because having to offer upgrades to so many cars is expensive, Tesla puts a distilled model on older cars that performs worse and has no redundancy.
Time will tell if he can get away with this (hopefully not) but you are describing a system that's near-L4 and already exists today.
I'm sure that some spinners are horrible and peg the CPU, but unless your machine is older than ~2018 there is something wrong with your setup if spinners (and not intense operations behind them) cause your battery to suffer.
This is why a new 1500lb Cessna has the same starting price as a house. When things fly, the liability laws get much more onerous.
IMO this rule is not good but there is a trade-off being made either way.
You have to be living in a VHCOL to get that, but if you make >$300k TC you are outearning most doctors.
You know what behavior HASN'T been exceptional in my experience? Landlords playing stupid games with my deposit, trying to hold me accountable for nonexistent or preexisting damage, or just generically being irritating.
Let landlords ban pets other than registered service animals if they want to (none of this ESA nonsense), make sure the eviction process is timely and fair, and otherwise crack the hell down on the games they play with their tenants.
Landlording is so morally fraught that Adam Smith called it out in the Wealth of Nations as an example of unproductive rent-seeking. "Populist slop" is absolutely called for - there is almost no other industry of that size where so many unearned benefits accrue to the already-wealthy.
If there is a supply shortage prices will rise; no amount of futures trading can create resources out of thin air.
To reduce volatility you would need to actually stabilize the supply of onions.
What futures do is allow traders to shift risk from the future to the present. By pricing that risk, it's possible for people who depend on onions to pay a little more now in exchange for a guarantee about the future.
It's not magically going to make onions less volatile (although high risk prices can spur investment which might) but it can reduce disruptions caused by volatility.
The classic example of this is futures on jet fuel which allow airlines to weather random wars in the middle east, OPEC shenanigans, etc. Ticket prices are higher this way, but the existential threat of being forced to cancel a bunch of flights is gone.
I don't know if this is true. Lots of this stuff is inherently expensive - clinical trials, research into vast numbers of compounds, and then mass-producing the drug are all things that cannot be feasibly done without at least millions of dollars.
The US and China are the current world leaders in biotech, and it's because both of them have massive infrastructure to funnel billions of dollars into research.
Yeah, the IP law could be reformed (I am a big believer in reducing IP protections in general) but the truth is that SOME FORM of protection is necessary to convince people with money to fund this kind of research. The government is simply not capable of this level of spending for such uncertain rewards; it doesn't have the proper incentives to recognize and promote good research while defunding useless research.
Additionally, there are human factors to consider. One commonly read-out piece of data is the local altimeter setting which ensures that all aircraft under the control of the same facility have a common reference - you generally don't set your altimeter to the area you're in, but rather to the setting of where you're going. Airplanes already automatically receive that data, but selecting the exact setting requires manual intervention for precisely this reason.
Add in the need to allow older airplanes to keep flying, the need to be robust to signal jamming, and the inherent safety issues with packing an airplane full of gas and hundreds of people, and it quickly becomes clear that full automation is inadvisable.
"Delayed gratification" is also provided by investments producing returns. An economy with lots of investors will outperform one where people stuff their cash into their mattress, and deflation makes it very hard for potential investments to beat that strategy.
> For most of human history the money was stable.
[citation needed]
The Spanish empire was driven to collapse by hyperinflation. Even in the US, there were financial collapses in the 19th and 18th century. Bank runs have been a thing for as long as banks have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
Your premise is based on faulty assumptions. The existence of credit itself is what causes monetary instability, and without credit the world would look very different.
> Regardless of whether you think the French revolution was good or not, it was the inevitable outcome of a very similar situation we find ourselves in.
A major cause of the French revolution was food insecurity caused by bad weather. Since you're such an expert surely you know that because "let them eat cake" was one of the major quotes from the period.
People literally starving is not even remotely "similar" to what's happening now.
> Do you not know about the French revolution?
The main losers in the French revolution were regular people, and the country ended up under a totalitarian dictator who conquered large swathes of Europe and invented the concept of total war. I'm not sure you should be holding it up as an example of protests (which were astonishingly violent in this case) leading to good and reasonable outcomes.