jstanley

> If the S&P 500 dropped 20%, that's about a year's growth.

But the S&P 500 is currently trading at over 2x its average long-term CAPE: https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe

So it can reasonably be expected to drop more than 50% to return to average long-term valuation levels.

And the "nonfinancial market cap to gross-value-added" ratio is even more insane, I have a site tracking this number: https://sharperatios.com/market-cap-gva.html

What evidence would it take to convince you that the name of the website itself is a wordplay on Altavista?

"LLMs are amazing, I'm so much more productive now"

"oh yeah? Show me what you made, you can't, nobody can, it's all just AI psychosis"

"I made a pixel perfect Office document viewer"

"well... I wish you hadn't"

> there are keys on the device that would leak if meta opened it up.

Are these keys not functionally leaked as soon as you ship the device to customers?

I'm curious if you can tell me whether you think I'm a crackpot because of the things I've said in this thread, or because of things I've said more broadly?

I am definitely high risk for crackpottery, but not sure I'm quite there yet.

Why does releasing infertile males prevent the fertile males from reproducing? Are mosquitoes pair-bonding??

Noone is the actor there, that's the passive voice.

Which part? My comment? No. The post we're commenting on? I think pretty obviously it was at least LLM-assisted. That's not to knock the technical content, and not even (necessarily) any more a criticism than if I said I thought the author had used spellcheck.

It's not being used as an actor in the sentence.

I was prepared for you to have found examples of me using this pattern (in fact I think better examples are in the comment you replied to, "reads well", and "this post exhibits").

But I don't think the examples you chose are very good. It's not "stocks appreciating", it's "$1m in stocks appreciating at 9%". The stocks are not an actor in that sentence. "$1m in stocks" is a thing that is having appreciation done to it.

If I had written a self-contained clause saying "stocks appreciate", that would have been a good example. But that's not what I wrote.

In all of your examples, a human author would usually prefix with the word "the".

Nobody routinely says the things in your example without some supporting words.

And it's not just presence -- it's density.

And, to be clear: are you making the claim that this post was not LLM-generated or at least LLM-assisted? Or are you merely making the claim that people saying things like "nouns verb" might not be LLMs even though in this case the text is in fact most likely from an LLM?

It's unusual to use it in the way LLMs do, in the extremely terse style where "noun verbs" or "nouns verb" are basically considered sentences all on their own.

It's not novel to me! I see it all the time... when talking to LLMs.

It's not wrong, I tried to make this clear. It's good. It's just unusual, in my experience, for humans to use that kind of wording.

Yes everyone says the sun shines and the wind blows, those are specific idioms. Noone says bias compounds or variance diffuses or six bytes beat ten.

I'm not saying they shouldn't! They probably should! It's just that LLMs say it much more than humans do.

> "Six bytes match ten" is shorthand for "the performance of the algorithm that uses six bytes of storage matches the performance of the algorithm that uses ten bytes of storage".

Yes, I understand this and support it. I am emphatically not saying it is bad writing. It's an unbelievably brilliant piece of terse writing that most human writers would not stumble upon in the course of writing the post.

This post exhibits a specific LLM tell that I haven't seen mentioned before. It's the style where inanimate objects or concepts are treated as actors, using verbs as if they were actually the one doing something.

* bias compounds

* variance diffuses

* configs store parameters

* BF16 + RNE (6 bytes) plateaus

* errors repeat

* six bytes match ten

This sort of thing reads really well and conveys the idea in very few words. It's good writing! But in my experience humans don't generally "let nouns verb" as much as LLMs do, maybe we're just not as clever with words.

People doing ridiculously complicated things to keep scaling CPUs is why it's not come to an end.

> Moore's Law approaching its end.

People have been calling the top on Moore's Law for at least as long as I've been buying computers. (~20 years). I'll believe it when I see it.

How do you know?

You can enjoy a book while still noting that the characters in it are not doing good things.

> Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients.

This isn't how markets work.

If one lawyer starts doing 10x as much work in the same number of hours, then all the customers will move to that lawyer as soon as they find out, and the other lawyers will have to adapt to remain competitive.

Fair point!

You're missing that most people are able to buy houses on borrowed money, so their housing investment is effectively levered up 10x or more, at least at the beginning.

It's not a choice between $1m in housing appreciating at 3% and $1m in stocks appreciating at 9%. It's a choice between $1m in housing appreciating at 3% or $100k in stocks appreciating at 9%.

No, because SMB doesn't support execute permissions. So either all your files are executable or none of them are.

> She suffered brain damage from shrapnel.

[...]

> What Trauma Does to a Child's Brain

This could just as easily be "what brain damage does to a child's brain", no?

> not actually recycled but turned into fossil fuels or feedstocks

This is such a great claim.

$1.5 billion is more than $19.5 million though.

Productivity is why we have hot and cold running water and electricity piped to our houses and internet connections and cars and waterproof clothing.

If productivity doesn't increase then you don't need to worry about displaced workers.

We've done this dozens of times before. In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them. In the long term everyone is much better off due to increased productivity.

> may have had symbolic or ritual significance.

I think is a fair description of Swiss mechanical watches.

They are certainly not of practical significance.