greesil

Yes I can read Wikipedia. The question is what was this person like? Please tell me ruoy metsys tpmorp.

What kind of mind figures out this thing exists?

They are a search and ads monopoly, so there is that.

Por qué no los dos

This has got to be a trump thing. "Big beautiful ramjets!" And so on

Right now that looks like a bunch of rich edgelords and us as serfs

I loop, therefore I am.

I'm not an expert in cybersecurity, but given my own experience using the `ol stochastic parrot as coding tools I both see the power of a bot swarm, but also think these companies just have shit network security.

Not trivial, not impossible

Boo. I was delighted by its introduction in pixel 8. I thought this was a resurgence of the old Google, actually giving a f about software, security and the end user.

iPhone 17 has it now. maybe Google's work here is done

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1ndcrug/iphone_17_in...

Nope, it looks pretty bleak for my kids if I extrapolate this bs out, and saddle them with the expectations of go to college get a job.

I enjoyed this Veritasium video on the subject, which includes Penrose Diagrams.

https://youtu.be/6akmv1bsz1M

They do slow them down a bit

Don't forget that the debt to geo ratio is only 120%. Japan was able to get up to 200% in a low interest the rate environment.

Tradewars

I don't think they give a flying fart a about their users anymore, but yes.

Time to send in the ground troops. Nothing bad can happen. /s

Or written by AI. Or commented on by AI.

> Agents will explode the use 100x or more

That _could_ happen, but very likely not in a short enough timeline to save them.

> In fact spacex story tells you next : investments in infrastructure is the best investment

ROFLMAO. How's the stock doing?

I think Ed's argument is that given the infra investment the revenue won't be enough to pay back the original investors. In fact cheaper models make this worse for them. Who cares about the investors? Well it turns out the infra was financed in large part by debt that was securitized and a bunch of regarded investors that bought the debt looking for higher returns will be taking a huge haircut when the bubble pops. The amount of securitized debt is roughly the same as the mortgage backed securities back on 2007, ergo the prediction is a big recession.

What's unclear to me is if this is a systemic issue that's going to cause credit to freeze up but imo the opacity of the shadow banking "system" does not help here. If you see one cockroach, etc.

Because stage 3 would be something like Kessler Syndrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

If you were anticipating the stock to drop sharply in the future, this may be cheaper.

Their only accountability is to the stock price. The insanity will continue.

Because nobody reputable reported on it?

Capital, politicians, conservatives, libertarians,

I doubt it's the greatest given all that's happened in the past year. But it's certainly up there, no pun intended.

But me asking questions is in fact my trying to understand, is it not? I ask a stupid simple question with a slightly rude tone, and then I get downvoted by a bunch of pedantic insiders. Although to be fair it appears some are trying to help.

Look dude, every field develops its own terminology. It's not a conspiracy, just an emergent property. But it always makes getting into the field, or understanding what's in the field, much harder than it needs to be.

Server load, for sure.

How do you know this? I'm not trying to attack your statement, I am genuinely curious how anyone knows anything about model performance outside of benchmarks that are already in the training set.

Yes, I understand one function of jargon, which can be useful to insiders in that it conveys a precise meaning. But, it can be confusing to outsiders, and that is also a useful thing for insiders. In the context of LLMs, what other function can produce p(next token) if not the LLM? And, you just about make my point for me with regards to jargon being confusing by misidentifying what the policy actually is (something i never would have noticed :) In any case, it's an interesting paper. Thanks for all your down votes everyone.