caeril

Apparently you forgot the WHO's catastrophic missteps during COVID?

At some point, you need to fire your under-performing partners.

Is there an argument here beyond armchair psychologizing?

GPT-3 is over 4 years old. The writing was on the wall then. FAANG status-strivers had plenty of warning to maybe stop blowing their TC on impressing other people, and choose instead to sock something away.

Most chose not to, because living the "right" lifestyle was far more important than prudence. It is for these people that just desserts are in store.

The Social Network and its consequences have been a disaster for the software engineering race. It marked the Eternal September when this profession was inundated with greedy normies who don't care about software, but rather their wealth and status. The end of this era could not come quickly enough.

These models are far better teachers for my kids than their actual teachers. they are far more engaged, able to go down rabbit holes guided by their own curiosity, and end up learning more.

I do my best to ensure they're not using these models to do their work for them, but they are invaluable teaching tools, nonetheless.

Hopefully this will be one more nail in the coffin for the sprawling public education complex.

Really? Let's hypothesize that some rando on the internet contacted you and said he was Jensen Huang, and he offered to sell his NVDA stock to you at $50/sh (currently trading at $135). Looking for a quick flip, you wire your family's entire savings to a random account number he sends you - or, even better, to some BTC address.

You later find out, SHOCKINGLY, that this rando is not actually Jensen Huang. You would, rightly, be a fair target of mocking for your S-tier gullibility.

This isn't "I fell for a well-designed phishing scam"-tier, or "SBF promised me 9% yields"-tier. This is a whole other level that is rightfully deserving of mockery.

The fact she wrecked her marriage in the process is just the cherry on top.

It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste.

It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).

> > which could include sexual assault or drug use

Wouldn't any potion, including potions of healing, be considered "drug use"? Howabout excessive drinking by dwarves at a tavern in the canonical DM party formation ritual?

> Well, unless public healthcare, then it 'hurts' all tax payers

No, it also hurts private insurance customers( in the US ). Healthy weight people, and those who exercise are subsidizing the premiums of people who refuse to put down the fork and move occasionally, because it's illegal to discriminate premiums based on obvious risk factors like bodyfat %.

My family pays $2700/mo in premiums for a shit-tier PPO in order to support the gluttony of everyone around us. We very rarely even use the insurance.

> take over the microphone and address a room with 500 people in it

I'm not sure this has anything to do with introversion.

Speech and debate clubs are filled with introverts. The notion of "stage fright" is completely orthogonal to introversion. You're speaking at people, with YOUR ideas, YOUR words - it's not a dialogue, with shared feelings, mood, etc, which is where introverts generally get drained.

"Passion" is an overused term, but it's absolutely clear that developers who love what they do are nearly an order of magnitude better than those who are punching the clock.

In a very specific sense, I tend to perform reverse-age-discrimination, because a developer who was PEEKing and POKEing segmented address space with BASIC in 1984 as a kid is always going to be preferable to an aimless Zoomer who was "inspired" by Justin Timberlake saying "A million isn't cool anymore, you know what is cool? A Billion." in The Social Network.

You might also be oblivious to what depression IS, because clinical psychologists are, as well.

Depression is a cluster of symptoms, for all intents and purposes. There is some evidence that SSRIs help these symptoms, but direct causal seratonin deficiency hypotheses have yet to be supported.

There's scant evidence that modern non-pharmaceutical therapeutic interventions (with the exception of niche interventions like CBT) are even effective, yet the advice "go to therapy" gets tossed around constantly as if it's Science(tm) with a capital S.

You can claim that the "depression is just a matter of perspective bro" is an ignorant take, but according to the literature, "depression is a chemical imbalance", or any other definitive "depression is X" claim is equally ignorant. We still don't really know. We're still searching.

Men are overrepresented at both ends of nearly all bell curves. Men have fatter tails in most distributions you can think of. More presidents, but also more suicides.

You are effectively saying that because men are more likely to be president, CEO, Nobel Prize winner, etc, we should tell the men who are more likely to be homeless, murdered, etc, that they deserve it, and they should shut the fuck up.

She worked briefly at Amazon, and she was an accountant. She did not work on critical technology, logistics, growth strategy, design, or operations. There is no world in which she deserves, by dint of her contributions, anything more than $1B.

You're correct that she is LEGALLY entitled to half, but that doesn't make it right. People can LEGALLY traffic slaves in Yemen, but I'm going to guess you won't be advocating for the God-given right of Akhmed to sell laborers to UAE real estate development companies?

Denial policy should be very very simple:

If you're seeking coverage for lung cancer, but you chose to smoke, denied.

If you're seeking coverage for type II diabetes, but you weigh 400lbs, denied.

If you're seeking coverage for cancer because you got unlucky with a cosmic ray incident on your DNA, approved.

If you're seeking coverage for a liver transplant because you refused to put down the bottle, denied.

If you're seeking coverage for injuries from an auto accident that was not your fault, approved.

I will NEVER understand why this type of blanket policy is so controversial. Cover bad luck, do NOT cover personal choices. It will fix not only costs, but the moral hazard endemic to the current system.

Or, AT THE VERY LEAST, allow prejudicial adjustments to premiums for fatties, smokers, and alcoholics.

Bear in mind that a "1 million token" context window isn't actually that. You're being sold a sparse attention model, which is guaranteed to drop critical context. Google TPUs aren't running inference on a TERABYTE of fp8 query-key inputs, let alone TWO of fp16.

Google's marketing wins again, I guess.

> Connections, social intelligence, and knowing how to work the system is what moves things in Washington

You're not wrong, but this is a normative observation.

The question is, is this how it ought to be?

Yes, because Polymarket offers sports markets, which are still illegal in the US (for US users, anyway). Kalshi has been careful to offer markets in basically everything except sports.

It should be obvious what happened here: Polymarket has been offering grey or black markets to users, using only IP address as the discriminator, which is very easy to work around. They've operated under the Feds' radar for quite some time, and the Feds noticed them after they started getting significant press regarding the election.

The election is the reason they got noticed, but the likely crime itself is sports, not elections.

These markets are no more "gambling" than other markets are.

A traditional sportsbook maintains a house vig anywhere from 5 to 15%, which is, indeed, a pretty fast path to ruin. They typically don't allow you to exit your position once you're committed.

Polymarket's sports markets, in contrast, have comparable bid/ask spreads to financial markets (maybe slightly wider), and the market is liquid such that you can sell your contract to someone else whenever you want.

> Feels less combative than Twitter.

Echo chambers are, by default, less combative.

As Twitter becomes more hiveminded, you can expect it to become less combative, as well.

One would think, but it's an industry I'll never understand, either.

Coca-Cola doesn't need to advertise. It's delicious, everyone knows it exists, and yet they still spend ungodly amounts of money on advertising.

KO shareholders presumably wouldn't let them get away with this if it wasn't justifiable. So there's something I'm likely missing.

> based on traditional definitions

A lot of traditional definitions imply some degree of consciousness or sentience.

But AGI will ultimately be defined by capabilities, not similarity to humans.

If a GPT-style LLM meets or exceeds humans at a broad category of tasks, it doesn't matter that it doesn't "understand" the tokens it operates on. Same with self-driving systems or autonomous robots. It doesn't matter if the CNN doesn't have a conception of a "person" - if it can feed the identification vector into the control network, and the control network swerves to avoid the identified object at a rate equal to humans, then that's good enough.

Capability is what matters, nothing else. And right now, we have ALL the parts to do this, we just have to scale them up, and train them better, and connect them.

There's still a ton of room left in short error-correcting RLHF or fine-tune cycles.

I expect there will be, at some point, "trusted" or "verified" accounts that are able to flag a completion as wrong, and provide it with a correct completion, which will be collated and used (daily? hourly?) to fine-tune the weights. Active inference cluster would be switched as A/B/C etc.

Sequoia, and others (who actually receive the quarterly reports) seem pretty happy with their position.

> my understanding of the economics is that this would be terrible

Deflation is only "terrible" because we have collectively decided to build an economy on debt instead of savings (Keynesian instead of Friedmanian).

In a different economic order, prices declining would be a good thing for everyone.

But we're stuck with it, so inflation it is.

100% out of touch, yes, but not wrong. Before kids I had the same exact sentiment, and now, with kids, I still do.

Raising a family is a choice, and that choice should be made deliberately, considering all aspects, including financial impact.

It is no more the responsibility of the employer to consider the family of the employee anymore than for them to consider if the employee is a gambling addict, or spends frivolously on OnlyFans subs or funko pop collecting.

You've been mislead on the "common pay" for software developers by the overemphasis of total compensation from FAANG (partially due to HN bias). Outside of FAANG, most developers earn less than you think in the US, and outside the US, it's even drastically less.

These are NYC tech workers. "Food" isn't broccoli beef stir fry at home for $8. It's dinner at Del Frisco's for $300.

You need to understand that when people bitch about the "cost of living", they're not speaking in broad terms. They're speaking in specific terms, inclusive of their insane budgetary choices that they believe are mandatory to be seen as high-status.

Yes, you can live just fine on the median income. But in order to have your ego stroked as the super important high class person that you obviously are, you have to spend some money. Choosing to live in NYC in the first place is certainly part of that, the rest is just gravy.

Wow, this is some incredible technology. It's not like tmux and neovim have been available for a decade now. This is like space-age alien technology with which, for the first time ever, we can develop over ssh!

What a world we live in, what a time to be alive!

It's worrying, yes, but we've had stackoverflow copy-paste coding for over a decade now already, which has exactly the same effects.

This isn't a new concern. Thoughtless software development started a long time ago.

Rural communities have strong social cohesion out of necessity, not desire. I grew up rural, so I have some experience with this.

Suburbia hits the sweet spot of introverted personality types: you don't NEED to know your neighbors, because there are sufficient services/resources to handle everything yourself, but you also don't get hemmed into an urban chicken coop that forces you to know your neighbors.

The only people who raise alarms about "social atomization" are extroverts, and they're entirely incapable of understanding that some people actually prefer their isolation.

> even when the tech does become "good enough", it will take another decade or two before it becomes the main way of doing things.

What you're advocating for would be a crime against humanity.

Every four years, the medical industry kills a million Americans via preventable medical errors, roughly one third of which are misdiagnoses that were obvious in hindsight.

If we get to a point at which models are better diagnosticians than humans, even by a small margin, then delaying implementation by even one day will constitute wilful homicide. EVERY SINGLE PERSON standing in the way of implementation will have blood on their hands. From the FDA, to HHS, to the hospital administrators, to the physicians (however such a delay would play out) - every single one of them will be complicit in first-degree murder.