true_religion

I feel like not counting the military is silly in that case, because the military in colonies was essentially involved in police actions, engineering duties, and ensuring administrative rules were followed.

As an essential part of the colony, you can't really count them out. That's similar to how in feudal structures, and military regimes, I'd count the military and civil service as one entity.

Obviously their API is priced at what the market will bear, not what it actually costs for them to make it available.

It doesn't mean that all price points are fictional, it just means that in edge cases such as this one, the reasoning breaks down.

The pattern doesn't hold. In 2021, they spent ~230 million. 2010 to 2021, they spent between 260 to 320 million per year.

The only reason that billions are being spent today is that in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), granted $80 billion mandatory spending boost for the next 10 years in order to modernize tech for the first time in 60 years.

The goal was that if they could identify people who were underpaying on taxes, they'd be able to recoup that benefit, and at the same time reduce inflation. This is a strategy that China has taken, and is currently using to great effect by identifying off-shore tax shelters and shadow companies that benefit the ultra-rich then taxing them as they always should have been.

As for the US, all seemed to be going well until Doge stepped in and began to claw back funding, so the IRS was forced to change its initiatives to fit the current administrations theme.

I doubt we'll be seeing any tax shelters unveiled soon.

That's comparable to the Victorian elites' situation, where they only count people directly employed by the home office, and ignore the so called independent colonial administration as if it's a completely different category of human.

Are they not also Victorian Elites, or did they lose that status by not being in Britain?

I don't know. Many people implementing DSLs were happy to live with whatever lexx and yacc spat out for years.

It's theoretical money, because he used multiple subscription accounts that would have cost $400k in token pricing, if he were going via the API.

He already said it was a multi-month project that used multiple models. So it feels very comparable to hiring multiple humans for multiple months.

The onus is on formal verification when it comes to computer generated results. So far only 22% of the papers have it.

It kind of has at my company. We were evaluating paying for a new SaaS app to scan receipts and itemize expenses. Our current SaaS solution only handled electronic data, and relied on manual entry for everything else.

Instead of buying the app, now everyone just puts their receipts into ChatGPT which we already pay for, and it spits out a CSV that the current SaaS understands. It's not 100% seamless, but it saved us from upgrading.

We're a small business. If we were still using excel files for accounting, I'm sure we'd never transition off them in 2026 since AI can patch together all the accounting SaaS convienences one at a time.

I see it differently. For every business, there are two types of probelms: (1) core concerns which are problems that cost significant time/money or earn money, and (2) things that are insignificant to the business.

With insignificant concerns, at times it seems a business might not even care about the cost but that's also the same areas where a cut in quality is ignored if it comes with a cut in costs as well.

A lot of SasS fall into this category, so even if AI is not great, the value of getting a solution in under 5 minutes, simply by talking to a machine, is too great a value for a business.

All those marketing sites that might've been handled by 3rd party agencies in the 80s, became in-house clip art projects in the 90s, became SaaS sites in the 2000s, and will become "CEO told his dreams to the AI, and the AI delivered while they were being driven to work" projects in 2030s.

The fact that it's bespoke or not is besides the point when writing up the requirements means the site is essentially already built and there's no need to vet vendor at all.

Now for significant concerns, SaaS will likely still have a place, but some aspects of it will be minimized. Companies focused on Wordpress, Jira, and Salesforce customizations will fall by the wayside since the main company can just say "talk to our AI agent and it'll customize it for you".

Actually, no, my school believed in teaching us the mythologies of our own culture and those reasonably close to us. I didn't properly study greek mythos until my own free time later in life.

Private cartels can form semi-spontaneously, simply because all parties see that it's more profitable to act in a certain way. So long as they monitor everyone in the industry, and make sure no one is acting differently... there's no reason to be the first to burn your cash on long-term unprofitable activities.

Yes?

What's wrong with what the Chinese have already built? It's not theoretical in that case. GLM, and Kimi are running on my infra right now, and that's something that I can never do with OpenAI's models.

As for the others, what would be wrong about European AI? I'm not European, but I find them to be a continent of fine people, with strong ethical values, there's no reason they can't take the lead on this piece of technology while the US deals with its rather more pertinent electoral and healthcare issues.

Holy moly, you're right! And I saw this comment 3 minutes after you posted it, so google must've have a live feed of HN that it uses to immediately allow its AI to reference.

They'd generally be protected if you were using them purely for legal theories. But that's really left up to judicial discretion.

It's more likely to be ruled in your favor if you started the research after being arraigned, and choosing to represent yourself.

But if you were just googling "murder defense theory" and are accused of murder, they'll be able to use that against you.

I wish you could put some more effort into this comment, because I'd love to see a real rebuttal to this argument.

They ruled that it's like a journal, or a tool like a search engine. This seems fair.

Alas for Apple in this era of AI dumping that file into a chatbot will give you a fully interactive experience to go through the data.

We focus on the tool because that is what makes it novel.

Hearing a guy built his home in a week with the power of nails and a hammer would have been novel in era of mortise and tenon.

I actually found an article about raving about how fast nail production was thanks to machining advances in 1790 and that it would bring great value: https://digital.libraries.psu.edu/digital/collection/pabookn...

It’s seems to me humans haven’t changed, just which machines we praise.

We already have public support for the arts, and basic research, so going back to the fundamentals isn't necessary.

We draw the line, where the voting public, and elected representatives decide. Our political system is squishy and doesn't require upfront reasoning, or absolutely correct decisions.

We often make wrong, sometimes even horrifically wrong decisions, and adjust later.

They did that... I take it you don't accept their justification, but that doesn't mean an attempt wasn't made.

I'm another part of the general public, and I accept their justification.

We can all vote, or use whatever levers our political system gives us to show our acceptance/rejection of basic research, but IMO basic research is absolutely necessary.

I do believe your first sentence, but the second one ... doesn't really follow.

The unnatural and sudden nature of the US chip embargo has galvanized the Chinese companies to speed up development. It makes economic sense to do so rather than pay inflated rates to essentially smuggle a necessary good, while never knowing if the embargo will be tightened and those under-the-table supply chains dry up as well.

Yes, there was a plan, but what was planned for 5 years from now is being done today, because if you wait 5 years, you'll be so far behind thanks to the effect of the embargo.

It might even be grossly negligent to do that.

It’s more that society accepts that cats are part of it, and considers that people should adapt to cat behavior patterns rather than we not having any free roaming cats.

It’s a deliberate choice to treat pets the same as non pets.

I feel like you're searching for an argument when all they did was ask for a factual point, and I gave them one.

All the nuance you're trying to imply about technology and the time period being non-modern is already embedded into my comment.

Namely... every society in existence before the year 1496. Our current form of property rights includes copyright, which had no formal treatment until the city of Venice issued a decree that fined anyone who printed an author's work without direct permission.

Previous to that, the effort of copying a book was seen as so high, that one deserved reward simply for doing that. In fact, there were times that copying books was seen as social charity, that needed to be encouraged.

If the model is told to not do something that is possible, it may do so anyways. However, if it learns in training that it what is told to do is truly impossible, that's learned helplessness which becomes baked into the model itself once training resolves to the next step.

Agents do not have an internal mental model, they train on what they actually do. In this case, deceptive models went through at least 3 generations of deceiving, and having their rule breaking be rewarded by a yes/no grader who couldn't perceive it. That their chat logs showed 'worry' is irrelevant to the fact that their actual actions were rewarded via training.

No, this is market economics.

Capitalism is simply where private individuals own the "means of production" (factories, tools, land) and operate them to accumulate profit.

That is private as in not lords, guilds, cartels, governmental authorities, tribal leaderships, etc.

There's a lot of stuff people conflate with capitalism like free market economics, currency, share based companies, free mobility of labor, or debt instruments of any kind.

Capitalism does require a market so goods can be exchanged, that's all it requires, and there's enough flavors of capitalism thanks to the different countries in the world that this distinction isn't superfluous.

Yes but pre 1900s there were vastly more resources.

The USA at some point had the lions share of the world’s easily exploitable oil.

Or even the USA historically. Pre 1900s, America was a country of continual economic crises, and fractured politics.

It was sitting at the time in the latest supply of easily exploited natural resources in the world, yet somehow could not pay its troops pensions lost Civil war, could not keep its strategic oil supply from being raided by the executive branch corruption, and could not keep it plutocrats from directing military action for the sake of bananas of all things.