Presumably they only have empirical results and if so, wouldn't you need to train multiple successive models to even test such a hypothesis? Even then, it's not like an inductive proof. An improvement in one generation does not imply an improvement in the next (unless you define improvement to mean exactly that).
The problem with physics and chemistry is that you need simulations and those are often in themselves compute hungry. So the iteration loop will be slower.
In a world where sedans have been replaced by SUVs, I don't see how the market would react positively to this. But then again, Lime scooters are paradoxically also a thing. I guess maybe it's a matter of marketing?
Hmm, I think you provide a compelling narrative. However I'm not very convinced.
I think AI is a good example. EU wide there are plenty of public HPC centers and in 2020 we had (relative to the world) plenty of compute. In other words, we had the tech, we had the compute, and we had the know how. And yet we don't really have a competitive AI scene in Europe. There were some very small projects launched to try to train LLMs. All of them were no more than learning exercises.
True, but what they do is they invest in fundamental research and then expect magic to happen and that research to lead to economic growth. Unfortunately the wizards that cast the spells live in the US, not Europe.
EU also recently introduced a 3 euro fee on all packages from China. Maybe well intentioned but it puts a huge markup, when a thinker wants to buy a very specific 0.05 euro spring from AliExpress or something along those lines.
It's an interesting topic, but the article is completely AI generated, which isn't surprising considering the startup, but still, if you don't even go over the output what's the point?
I don't either. Don't we have free market capitalism? Why don't I have a Linux phone? And why do I need to worry that my government and banking apps won't work if I get a Linux phone?
It's probably because they hit a dead end with their approach in terms of improvements. You can only get so far with trying to model a physical system with an insane number of degrees of freedom from simulation (and augmented) data.
This is the kind of rational you arrive to, if you spend too much time in feminist circles and never bother to actually try to understand the other side. I can assure you that nobody thinks in terms of "controlling women".
To be fair, this is only true in western countries. It's not true, in for example Russia or China. Or to be more accurate, in Russia and China, no matter how many hundreds of billions you own, you won't be able to bend the party to your will.
One possibly positive side effect is that by sidelining the working and middle classes, the political landscape would pit the rich against the fuck-you-rich.
It would be interesting to see the class of doctors, lawyers and small business owners fighting against the class of large cap c-suite and the billionaires.
Look, I'm not even a millionaire, and I will never be a billionaire, but in an alternate reality in which I'm a centibillionaire, one of my chief aims would be to limit the political say of the electorate as much as possible, because their voting rights would be one of the biggest threats to my everything.
Moreover, everyone who gains any amount of power becomes protective of it.
That's basic human nature. As a conservative, I under this.
All the frontier labs are lobbying hard to lock down the AI market, because they see that their position at the top is temporary and that there's no secret sauce.
Here's a shower thought. BTC essential is worth $70k solely through the power of memes. Can TSLA and SPCX remain overvalued (relative to the revenue of their respective underlying assets) forever through the power of memes?
Intuitively, it seems to me that there must necessarily be some kind of upper limit, but I'm not convincing myself. These speculative assets are only attractive as long as the price keeps inflating. But that can only happen if there is more and more demand. So it's basically a bet that there is an average amount of retail investors (I assume it's mostly retail investors but I could be wrong) that consistently put a percentage of their income into these speculative assets. Can this be maintained forever?
IDK about Argentina, but the US, Australia and Canada went through the whole cycle post WWII. At first they opened up their borders because they were in need of workers. However, at some point, due to various factors, including rising anti-immigration sentiments, they retightened their immigration policies again. This all happened pre-1990s. And all of those are immigration countries, unlike countries in Europe.
To me it seems like EU countries are independently embarking on the Canada-policy of importing a whole bunch of South East Asians and Latin Americans. From Hungary to Ireland, you see the same trend.
Part of it is by economic necessity. For example finding nursing staff is very challenging and you have to compete with the US and Australia and other rich countries.
But part of it doesn't make much sense. We really don't need to import any kind of engineers from outside of Europe when we have about 2,500 EU universities pumping out graduates each year.
Lack of sleep, not because of phones but because of more demanding lives due to modern education and workplace demands. Phones might contribute too, but consider how normal it is today to work till late hours compared to previous generations.
I don't think they are even referring to gradient descent here. I think they are referring to systems like AlphaEvolve where they use LLMs to give an informed/heuristical guess to try to tackle an otherwise insurmountable search space.