shwaj

Can you provide examples that support your assertion, that the US system was already generally seen as obsolete in 1926?

Smells like BS.

What, Dario is just going to turn on unlimited-token-CEO-mode and ask Claude to devise a plan to out maneuver the military and intelligence services? It’s not AGI yet, and this request would be far outside the training distribution: it would just hallucinate something based on Tom Clancy novels.

Edit: typo

From what I read here, the required chip size would scale linearly with the number of model weights. That alone puts a ceiling on the size of model.

Also the defect rate grows as the chip grows. It seems like there might be room for innovation in fault tolerance here, compared to a CPU where a randomly flipped bit can be catastrophic.

I’m not arguing anything, I was just trying to clear up confusion. However, it’s not clear to me that Ireland has “solved” the problem.

That’s not what they’re saying. Only the funding source would change; the funds would still be split evenly to anyone who meets the criteria of being an artist.

I’d hate the job too. It would be interesting to see how Google might evolve with him at the helm, for sure.

There’s 4 though, where does Demis fit in the stack rank?

A very kind response to such a grating lack of self-awareness.

It’s bad if the government is using it this way, but it would probably be worse if everyone could.

They say they’re developing products where the constitution is doesn’t work. That means they’re not talking about your case 1, although case 2 is still possible.

It will be interesting to watch the products they release publicly, to see if any jump out as “oh THAT’S the one without the constitution“. If they don’t, then either they decided to not release it, or not to release it to the public.

How can you expect someone to tailor a custom explanation, when they don’t know your level of mathematical understanding, or even your level of curiosity. You don’t know what a Gaussian blur does; do you know what a Gaussian is? How deeply do you want to understand?

If you’re curious start with the Wikipedia article and use an LLM to help you understand the parts that don’t make sense. Or just ask the LLM to provide a summary at the desired level of detail.

If you read what I wrote, I’m talking about a black woman who espoused, at length, her belief that being white is irredeemably not OK. Pardon my haphazard choice of “rejection of whiteness”. I’m not trying to echo culture war slang; I’m not savvy.

Edit: proof read fail

I feel a bit bad having written my comment, because the OP appears to be in some generalized pain about, let’s say, racist white men, fascism, or whatever. I can empathize with that, see how it lead them to write something ugly and evidently false about the recently deceased.

Myself, I remember seeing a YouTube video of people being asked “is it OK to be white?”, the same polling question that Scott Adams reacted to (I suppose) angrily/fearfully when only 53% of black people responded affirmatively. The question landed differently in video form because you could see the individuals in question: they were clearly individuals, even if you could lump them into categories if you wanted to.

I remember a few. There was an elderly black couple who looked happy in their long marriage, who I’d guess to be church goers, who found the question a bit preposterous: of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with the color of anyone’s skin. There were belligerent whites who bristled at the implication that someone would suggest that something was inherently wrong with them. There were white liberals who weren’t sure that there wasn’t something inherently wrong in them, their inner conflict plain on their faces.

One black woman stands out in my memory, because I took minutes to pause the video and reflect on how she made me feel (as a white man who thinks it’s racist to judge anyone by the color of their skin). She was vehemently, virulently of the opinion that it’s not at all OK to be white. Or so it appeared; maybe she was doubling down for the camera. Her friend was embarrassed and didn’t feel comfortable to offer her own opinion.

I found this woman’s ugly opinion to be personally hurtful, and I found it worthwhile to look inward to the parts that felt judged, that felt unseen, that felt afraid. I knew that it wasn’t representative of all black people, but it still hurt. I understand the history that lead (mislead) her to such an outlook, but that understanding didn’t lead to immediate empathy; I was repulsed by her ignorance and hate (not the color of her skin, it should go without saying). I closed my eyes and breathed until I found empathy for her. I just repeated the same exercise; the empathy came more easily this time.

In light of this memory, I also have empathy for Scott Adams. When faced with rejection of whiteness, unfortunately he responded (very publicly!) with fear and (what has been characterized, and may be) racism. I don’t agree with him, but I understand the pain that he was reacting to. And therefore I can’t be so quick to judge him as a “piece of shit”, when there are numerous people (dozens! lol) in this conversation who have had direct personal experience with him, and found him to be a caring and helpful individual. Maybe he wasn’t a total piece of shit, maybe he was just afraid.

There are literally dozens of people in this very HN conversation that are missing him.

I’m not sure whose business model you’re referring to, Cloudflare or Trump/Vance? Or sounds like the former, but I’m not sure how that appeal “validates the view…”.

That’s what he’s famous for, huh? Nobody knew who he was until he burst onto the national stage because of his brain worm. And please show a source that he was “proud” of the affliction.

It seems like a cheaper model could be asked to review transcripts, something like: “does this transcript seem at all like a wacky conspiracy theory that is encouraged in the use by the LLM”?

In this case, it would have been easily detected. Depending on the prompt used, there would be more or less false positives/negatives, but low-hanging fruit such as this tragic incident should be avoidable.

Matter to who? If you want to deeply understand how this technology works, this is still relevant. If you want to vibe code, maybe not.

If they set the deadline in 10 years, there would be (smaller) mountains generated in that period anyway.

Could always run the posts through a LLM to decide which are about AI :-p

I’ve heard many European non-native English speakers say “a software”, and I see it as a charming reflection of their native languages, where presumably “software” is a countable noun. I think that’s what’s going on here.

That was my concern too. However, the provided links to both the ToS and privacy policy were the standard Google ones (https://policies.google.com/terms), so it seems not to be giving Opal special privileges to read/train on Drive data.

I tried de-selecting that, and it told me to re-login and enable that setting.

Just like those? Those examples are highly improbable, whereas the CIA is almost certainly active in Iran right now (that’s their job!), even if there isn’t evidence that they are behind these particular protests.

Why not both? No need to be so disparaging.

That was my original thought, however if you want to quantify an effect it would be ideal to measure the same trait in both parent and offspring. I assume that the reason that this was done (I didn’t read the papers) is because this is a retrospective study, where the participants self-report on the exercise level of their fathers, rather than a longitudinal study which could measure the fathers’ metabolic state fitness at time of conception.

Thus, although there is a plausible link, I now agree with the parent post that this is sufficient reason to take the study with a grain of salt (given well known academic incentives to produce positive results, etc).

Very apt analogy.

Fair enough. It would be a clearer result (more “apples to apples”) if the same trait was directly measured “on both sides”. Thanks for restating.

Edit: typo

In the “paternal exercise” case the trait isn’t the habit of exercising, it’s the metabolic changes of exercise that are (apparently) conferred to both father and offspring.

I know, so what? Very smart people might have more than one idea in their careers. He left to pursue one of those.