antihipocrat

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Or AOL, I remember breakfast TV hosts mentioning AOL keywords a lot

Is it possible for there to be other undiscovered fields with a similar mechanic - turning on when the universe hits a future heat threshold?

To add to this, I think it's also whether prior training will make a substantial improvement in productivity.

Is this a joke? The irony is overwhelming

Parent used the word oligopoly. Your comment and links seem to agree?

That's not quite what the parent meant. There is a choice between very few phone manufacturers, and even less mobile operating systems.

Don't want to sign up to one multinational behemoth? Well, your choice is to sign up to one other multinational behemoth.

I'm wondering how their LLM parsing 250 mil words in 9 hours compares with performance of traditional sentiment analysis.

Also, many exisiting sentiment analysis tools have a lot of research behind them that can be referenced when interpreting the results (known confounds etc). I don't think there is yet an equivalent for the LLM approach

Yes, and it's interesting to note that as the proportion of quality information available (and searchable) has declined across the internet there is now an alternative in LLMs - which are being used to further decrease the availability of quality information on the internet.

How would confidence scores work? Multiple passthroughs and a % attached to each statement according to how often it appeared in the generated result?

If so, building this could be quite complex depending on the domain. In the legal field even one simple word that is changed can have large consequences.

Yes, I understand the point and agree with the logic (of course). I still don't think the original statement has been dispelled.

A person 'doing boring things' isn't necessarily a bored person. The experience of being bored is entirely subjective. One person staring at paint dry could be driven insane but another could be meditating upon the physical experience of the passage of time.

The saying 'bored people are boring people' isn't supposed to be taken literally. It is as logically fallible as any other quip in English, I think the difference with this one is that it is used in a more directly negative and judgmental way (and often perceived as such by the recipient).

Except I didn't raise the orthogonal point, you did by introducing wealth into the discussion.

My example demonstrated the orthogonal nature of your argument and that it doesn't hold true in all circumstances, and according to your criteria of only needing one example to disprove an assertion, then yours has been dispelled as well.

I'll add that I also dislike the adage 'only boring people get bored'. However I think there is some truth to it, perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be 'people who are always bored are boring people '

I don't think you've dispelled the original assertion at all. Your assertion that 'wealth does matter' is as orthogonal to the original as 'wealth doesn't matter', and there are plenty of examples in favour of each position.

Imagine there is a blackout and both the rich and poor are equally affected. One person decides to go for a walk and notices a few interesting things along the way. Another stays at home feeling bored.

I know which person I'd rather converse with, wealth doesn't really matter.

When you read a word relating to something you've seen or regularly experienced, how is that processed by your mind?

For example if you were asked to draw and color a basketball, how would you approach the task without 'seeing' something in your mind?

It helps that staff are participating in these programs full-time, no other duties required.

A story I've heard first hand is that after the program, department staff can discuss diplomacy in the target language, but struggled to order a coffee!

The US state department has some estimates of time to become proficient in target languages for English speakers. Germanic and Latin based languages take the least amount of effort:

https://www.state.gov/foreign-language-training/

My read on it was that the terms of use of content services can prevent that content being used to train LLMs.

If LLMs were trained using data from these services then it's possible that this will be challenged in court. Should the court rule in favour of the content services, then the LLMs may need to be re-trained (or likely negotiate compensation).

Right, maybe it can improve the productivity of companies that are operating below the mean.

It's a massive attractor of investment funding. Is it proven to be massively profitable?

21st century debtor's prison. No walls, chains or guards required!

The article answered that.. the author experienced increased cognitive load while using FSD, needing to be hyper aware of not only the road conditions but being vigilant and ready to correct mistakes.

There's no question that general standards of living have improved enormously, with some areas having much more improvement than others.

The comparison isn't US$1000 exchanged to Somali Shillings and looking at purchasing power. A Somali quartet is not earning anywhere near $1000 after conversion, and the price of many other products and services would be much cheaper compared to the US as well.

Nor is the comparison $1000 US dollars in 2024 and looking at what that same nominal amount would purchase in distant history.The quartet would be earning much less in nominal amounts, but the nominal amounts of everything are cheaper as well.

Here are some hard figures. Using the year 1800 as the comparison.

USA economy $1000 in 2024 = $40 in 1800. A 2388% increase attributed to inflation.

String quartet gig in 2024 = $1000 For 1800 it's hard to find earnings for anything outside of labor and manufacturing however the wage for a teacher was around $1 per day.

If we make a big assumption that teachers and musicians pay were equivalent, then it would appear that the purchasing power of a string quartet has 10x the purchasing power today after accounting for inflation $40 / 4 persons / $1 = 10).

10x is quite consistent across all occupations that I can find equivalents for (skewed heavily toward labouring and manufacturing, very few services are reported in 1800).

So in that sense the string quartet isn't an outlier, for the most part we are all enjoying around 10x the purchasing power since 1800.

One day's earnings now is equivalent to 10 days in 1800. This is great, but not anywhere near 1 day = 1 year.

Estimating inflation back to 1100 would be very difficult .. as would determining day wages, the economic system was very different.

Sources: Inflation - https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1800?

Labor wages in 1800 - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89071501472&seq=17...

Current wages - bis.gov

By that logic everything is insanely expensive.

Adjust for inflation and it would look much more reasonable. There are also four people earning wages in a quartet.

With so many developers using this package there must be a few here on HN. If anyone here has included this as a dependency I'd love to know the reasoning behind it.

Imagine having NPCs with prompt set character traits and set boundaries of knowledge of the game world.

The player can interact freely with the NPC rather than through predetermined conversation decision trees, potentially driving a lot of unique emergent gameplay.

Downsides are that it is a lot quicker just to skip through conversations with the decision tree format and having to think about and type in questions could get tiresome. Another downside is players jailbreaking the LLM...

There's no requirement to put qualifications or experience on the CV that aren't necessary for the role. Hiring managers make a lot of assumptions, and if specialisation is going to limit opportunity then leave it out.

Are you suggesting the author's site is now better for advertisers?

My takeaway from the author's example is that Google has set up a system that is incentivising actions leading to worse outcomes for both users (frustrating search experience) and advertisers (whose ad spend is not being well spent).

Google has no incentive to improve the situation - because google has an effective monopoly.

Google didn't 'make' the site owner change anything, there is obviously the choice not to serve ads and not change the site.

However, once the site owner decided to use Adsense then in order to use this service the site needed to change according to Google's requirements.

The point being made is that in order to serve ads the site owner had to add a lot of useless information irrelevant to what was driving traffic to the site in the first place.

Why did the first attempt get rejected, yet the final attempt after making the website objectively worse gets accepted?

The useless information that needed to be added to the site contributes to the decline in quality many people are noticing when using google search nowadays. This article provides a very interesting explanation for this decline.

The SEO spam domains could be blocked or de-prioritized by google. However, these SEO links generate significant income for Google via advertising.

When OKRs are tied to revenue, no executive is going to sign off on a change that reduces it