robotpepi

I'm no asking how to change it. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the market is some mysterious unreachable force. To be honest, at this point it's clear that you're being condescending and assuming people believe something foolish instead of trying to understand what they're actually saying.

we had local, small and noche business before. and even today.

the point again is that nobody says that certain mechanism of the market can have positive effects. the point is that way overestimated. we have extremely complex procedures that cost insanely amounts of money for stuff like ads. we could have a fraction of that power and people would still know about the products they need, etc.

Yes, it was clear that you wanted to refocus this as a moral problem of people. But that's irrelevant. The point of the guy above is that there is a system (the market) that creates certain incentives, and as a result, we have what we have. That's why I ask: what's your point? We still have all these problems.

it seems to me that the problem is quite the opposite. people believe that the "importance of allocation of capital" (good euphemism by the way) is WAY more important that it really is. do we need extra personalized ads in each of our machines? do we need instant financial trades and people optimizing instant transactions? We don't need a sophisticated AI to "inform" the customers.

there is a ton of things that are there simply because at some point people made money out of it, and then lobbied politicians to death to avoid regulation.

what's your point?

> No one uses "ChatGPT" as a verb.

In my experience, they do, a lot. "I asked ChatGPT" is something I hear a lot. And yes, this example is not using ChatGPT as a verb, but the idea of brand recognition is there; it's just a grammar thing.

for sure they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make it "pro consumer" as said above

> Probably $500K worth.

What life standards do you have!?

they explain it in the article: this is the first iteration, so they wanted to start with something simple, ie, this is a tech demo.

it's incredible how many people are commenting here without having read the article. they completely lost the point.

Are they becoming better at the same rate as before though?

this reminds me of that joke of someone saying "it's crazy that we have ten different standards for doing this", and then there're 11 standards

what kind of question is that

I cringe every time I came across these posts using words such as "humans" or "machines".

I mean, you're right but at the same time you're talking about something completely different. Software with security vulnerabilities is not a useful product. You don't address the raised issues.

I'm completely ignorant about this, but wouldn't it be possible to compile separately your project to improve compilation times? for instance, if you're using OP's vector library, which is self contained, you could compile that first and just once?

> so O(l * n) is at least O(n).

I guess you mean "at least O(n*log(n))".

> So there's nothing about this particular sequence?

Kolakoski's sequence is conjectured to be "uniformly recurrent", which means that every block of contiguous symbols appearing once in the sequence appears infinitely often and with bounded gaps. This is clearly not true for any sequence constructed like this. And the fact that we don't know how to prove uniform recurrence for Kolakoski's, which is arguably the simplest sequence defined by this method, is remarkable. There are other conjectures about frequencies of symbols, etc.

nwellnhof shared a link with a more efficient method for generating it.

although the sequence is not completely random (there are around n^alpha length-n blocks of contiguous symbols, for some alpha in [2,3) ), what people have done with other sequences is to take two simple PRNG (e.g. from a linear recurrence mod p) and alternate them according to the symbol you read from the sequence.

and the sequence does repeat. it is conjectured that any finite block of contiguous symbols occurs infinitely many times and moreover the gap between consecutive occurrences is uniformly bounded.

it seems to me that the answer is clear: you take the uniform probability measure on the unit disc.

me neither. are all these self declared fans commenting here real? I hope they're bots.

It is true that people are not forced to buy things. But even if one is not _forced_ into something, one can be _manipulated_ into something. This is what happens with ads: they're most of the time misleading (and in many cases they lie, tobacco industry being the classic example), they encourage addictive or compulsive behaviors, they try to manipulate you emotionally (which is easier if they know a lot about you), etc. Ads have too much power nowadays so that they even shape reality, they're not purely descriptive as you say, that's way too naive.

And ML models are not only based on what you've already bought. On instragram, for instance, I have ads for bird toys/vets/etc because I follow bird owners.

you keep changing the goalpost...

there have been social organizations where it doesn't have the prominent role it has now, this is a 20th century phenomenon.

what bubble are you talking about? you don't know what webpages I frequent.

and you're still missing the point. I'm not saying that marketing has no effect on people (on the contrary, that's the problem, and it affects me too). my point is about the absurdity of basing our social organization on this. marketing only has perverse motivations, then you see the effects on people. tobacco is the classic example. this is an inefficiency of the system.

we are talking about different things. you're confusing the efficiency of current marketing at making people buy stuff with the efficiency of the economic system. the economic system is here for us to satisfy our needs (although of course the current economic system has a different purpose). marketing has orthogonal goals.

it's already been explained in other comments: companies spend a shit ton of money to trick you (via storytelling, branding, slogans, influencers, psychological manipulation, etc) into buying shit. moreover, this is structurally necessary because a company without marketing is outperformed by one with it.

that's fair, but the sentence "marketing kills the humanity" remains true.

It makes the system very inefficient, don't twist my words, you're talking about something else. And this is not about intelligence, I'm not saying people make stupid choices. This is a question of perverse marketing incentives.

the first sentence "People buy things because it provides them value." is very false. that's central to many of the problems with marketing.