thesmtsolver2

How much of it is due to other sources of death being addressed?

And ASML wouldn't be possible without US taxpayer funded research. ASML's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) technology utilized foundational research from the U.S. Department of Energy.

> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet.[7] Two years later, it joined a consortium, which included Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) it operates under is funded by the US government, licensing must be approved by Congress.[14] Furthermore, in return for being permitted to join this consortium, ASML committed to the establishment of a US-based research center and to source 55 percent of components for all machines sold in the US from American suppliers.[7] ASML collaborated with various manufacturers to obtain mirrors, including the Belgian firms IMEC and Sematech as well as Germany's Carl Zeiss.[14][15]

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

> I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism.

Nobody said that. That is a strawman

Why?

Wouldn't government subsidies increase consumption?

So the point is even with govt subsidies and a generous oil industry, Norway ranks below all US states.

The chart literally says PPP, how is overpriced?

> No one would willingly live in Mississippi over France or Italy.

Have you seen parts of Paris? Not all parts of Mississippi are bad.

I think this comment is the tech equivalent of "if they can't eat bread, let them eat cake"

> Barring a true breakthrough in something like quantum computing or room-temperature superconductors

Won't that also help grep and then move the asymptote down more?

Look at the comment by mediaman

> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article. reply

Look at the comment by mediaman

> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article.

Obvious: Look at who funds the BBC and who they are not criticizing.

This is /r/iamverysmart material (by Claude)

Part of intelligence is knowing your audience and communicating efficiently.

So, Meta should be banned because it followed EU law to ban some things?

Wow, Europeans do have a penchant for recursively banning things :)

Follow the money

Originally derived from Hinduism thousands of years before Buddha (see Advaita for a modern view and Upanishads or Gita/Vedas for source)

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

Funny you say that while OpenAI and rest of the world rely on Lean and other formal systems to power through (or sometime brute force) math problems.

No, this is not survivorship bias. They didn’t claim ALL math is useful. They only said SOME math is civilization changing in nature.

Well, they are absolutely pretty good at faking being good at long-horizon planning which is enough to fool a lot of people till things start breaking lol.

IDF wants to exterminate Bahrain and UAE?

Comparing to raw LLMs? Much much better.

Human beings can play chess directly without coding up a tool.

You are human. You claim humans intelligent. Then, why should we accept your argument?

How dare the billionaire math professors profit off theorem proving!

The poor altruistic AI companies like OpenAI will unleash math understanding and theorems for free for humanity!

They have AGI but apparently can't trace if specific conversations were used in training a model.

You can steal lemmas, rough proof directions, conceptual ideas etc without stealing the full proof.

Any of that done unattributed is plagiarism.

Either OpenAI is incompetent or evil if they can't publicly prove the allegations wrong. Or even at least state categorically they didn't train on their conversations (even without proof).

The biggest cope is buying OpenAI's "We can't prove we didn't plagiarize"

Apparently, we have AGI that can solve Millennium Prize problems but can't trace simple data flows lol.

That’s not how either logic or justice work.

What? Go ask almost anyone in Asia outside Mainland China.

They all consider China to be the aggressor because they are. E.g., Tibet or India.

Didn’t you read the memo? Only European govts or China can act in the interests of their people and companies but if the US does that it is immoral.

Just because a condition is new to you doesn’t imply moving the goalpost. People have been putting forward continual learning and similar conditions like autonomy since 1950s.