vladimirralev

100% agree. Plus you can easily instruct it to use inspiration from unspecified unrelated and counterintuitive concepts at random and in parallel. The "jump" is not "on" by default because it would waste tokens on high risk paths, not because it's incapable. It's very capable if you are willing to wast some tokens.

Yes, might as well just give those $2500 to the landlords directly and skip the middle-man. It reads like a joke.

Today's high-end LLMs can do a lot of unsupervised work. Debug iterations are at least junior level. Audio and visual output verification is still very week (i.e. to verify web page layout and component reactivity). Once the visual model is good enough to look at the screen pixels and understand, it will instantly replace junior devs. Currently if you have only text output all new LLMs can iterate flawlessly and solve problems on it. New backend dev from scratch is completely doable with vibe coding now, with some exceptions around race conditions and legacy code comprehension.

Yes you are making my point exactly, I just gave you a link to the official federal reserve website that values gold at $42 and you still refer to it as a conspiracy theory. Surely they could have fixed this by now if it was a typo or a conspiracy.

The fact they they kept the price fixed should serve as a reminder they can do this at any time. There is no conspiracy theory, they've literally done this and nobody challenged them and no laws have changed since then (thus the "ancient law" that is somehow still in effect). The sophisticated economists that study "real world economic policy works by virtue of steady hands and rigorously applied norms" can make another "ancient law" any time they want.

Well, please show me any mainstream finance media that questions it. The Fed has a monthly press conference, I don't think they were asked even once in the last 10 years at least... Most of the buying now is from Asia supposedly.

It's a little bit broader than this. In the Fed there is the so called "statutory price for gold" and it's not limited to gold certificates. Any gold in the Fed would be priced at $42 by law. The fact that they don't technically own any gold and work around the issue only makes it so much more amusing. It only serves to tell people they can fix prices and make outrageous course-correction changes overnight and people will still argue "it's fine and it's legal" afterwards.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/intlsumm/current.htm

Good time to remind everybody that the Fed, the US central bank, prices gold at $42.22 for some reason and nobody questions it ever. And all those dignified educated respectable board members and econ PhDs give speeches about science-based market economy, maintaining credibility and staying away from politics while caring about the wellbeing of households and families.

I am fascinated your comment is buried down here with absolutely no discussion. Money printing is undoubtedly the biggest factor in this particular inflation spike, but something is quietly steering the narrative away from it almost everywhere.

While the question of alternative actions and outcomes is also valid, this is a literal 10-trillion dollar question that nobody in a leadership position wants to ask or answer.

If AI is the cause, it will only stimulate investment in more AI and accelerate the layoffs though. And because they don't have other tools, looks like this is exactly what they are going to do. Investment tends to concentrate massively at the festest-growing trend which this time is just replacing workers with AI.

They say "these results are completely general for any probability distribution with zero mean and a finite covariance matrix with rank much larger than the number of steps". It's not clear to me if that condition implies the number of steps is much lower than the dimensions of the random walk space or perhaps the probability distribution needs to be concentrated into a smaller number of dimensions to begin with? In which case the results is much less shocking.

LOL this is unexpectedly well done.

I've seen both replit and cline agents iteratively debug hard problem with massive amount of log lines. They can do it already.

It is still doing a great job for a few frames, you could keep it more anchored to the state of the game if you prompt it. Much like you can prompt coding agents to keep a log of all decisions previously made. Permanenece is excellent, it slips often but it mostly because it is not grounded to specific game state by the prompt or by the decision log.

It's not ideal, but you can prompt it with an image of a game frame, explain the objects and physics in text and let it generate a few frames of gameplay as a substitute for controller input as well as what it expects as an outcome. I am not talking about real interactive gameplay.

I am just saying we have proof that it can understand complex worlds and sets of rules, and then abide by them. It doesn't know how to use a controller and it doesn't know how to explore the game physics on its own, but those steps are much easier to implement based on how coding agents are able to iterate and explore solutions.

He is not using appropriate models for this conclusion and neither is he using state of the art models in this research and moreover he doesn't have an expensive foundational model to build upon for 2d games. It's just a fun project.

A serious attempt at video/vision would involve some probabilistic latent space that can be noised in ways that make sense for games in general. I think veo3 proves that ai can generalize 2d and even 3d games, generating a video under prompt constraints is basically playing a game. I think you could prompt veo3 to play any game for a few seconds and it will generally make sense even though it is not fine tuned.

A company can figure out the premium and just average it out across the pax who book thru them. Further they could risk-manage no-shows or other bad behaviour based on ratings and feedback. It's just wasting everybody's time to go thru intermediaries.

It's placed at 10. Below claude-3.5-sonnet, GPT 4.1 and o3-mini.

Dark forest theory is about very advanced civilisations not engaging with anything around them. Limited resources are not an issue in this case. You can easily just do everything in parallel with AI or other automated control system, using stars as energy sources, including spawning whole decoy civilisations at different stages of development. Because we see so many stars we know nobody is running out of energy yet.

Dark forest theory is wrong. Staying undetectable is always inferior to both staying undetectable and safely deploying varyingly detectable decoy targets at safe distance to probe the situation and gather intelligence.

But also "the memory" of the random walk can be encoded in a state itself. In your example you can just keep accumulating the visited nodes, so your state space will be now the space of tuples of nodes from your initial space.

Predicating the argument on a unified EU is a mistake. US was a good ally in NATO, certainly better than most EU countries. If this split can occur between US and "EU", it's almost certain a similar split will occur within the "EU" itself, and quite soon. Romania is already leaning this way. But France and Holland also trending this way.

EU politicians right now are trying to use this moment to unify the EU more and to justify more spending, but they way they steer the narrative is very awkward. They want to spend but only some regions will benefit from this spending as it stands and the others will only pay the bill further causing division.

Private companies in EU face a different problem - switching away from industry leading vendors makes them less competitive. We will have to see how this plays out.

The Fed has a few papers on this issue. Their conclusion is basically that the young will eventually inherit the wealth and market forces will force a redistribution. Thus it solves itself eventually.

I personally think that the Fed papers are just designed as an excuse to print money, but my point is the Fed is very far from seeing this as a problem and will never act to remedy it.

1. Is personal spending and wages growing with GDP? Answer in no. How is it fair for government spending to track and exceed GDP, but personal not to follow? GDP itself is a flawed metric that politics push to overstate.

2. This is all true, but much of the fraud takes please "in name" of something good. You will easily find things like funding some NGO to host a party in the "taking care of the elderly" code. Many things get misclassified to hide them better.

3. You don't really want to be fast and loose with health because it can produce some very bad headlines like people left with no care. Truth is, you can cut some spending and some pharma company who is on the receiving end of it can just stop supplying drugs or services leaving people to die and blaming you. And because it's a private company with it's own accounting, that may be true or not, but in any case it's better business for them to sabotage you and teach you a lesson.

4. This has more to do with accounting quirks than anything else. Companies have ways to spend money on intangibles with less and less scrutiny and it makes no sense to book any kind of cash profit, especially with higher inflation among other factors.

Similarly we can look at that past 20 years of Euro/Yen/Pound against Argentinian Peso and conclude that it's all fine? Dollar is strong against other currencies only because of the global competitive devaluation.

USD is losing value rapidly. It's amusing to see politicians claiming credit for stocks going up while the food prices are up almost as much, but nobody is responsible for this one. Dollar is down massively and downplaying this fact is only encouraging more of the same.

And it's not so much that the stock market is booming, rather the value of the dollar is imploding. Those are equivalent statements but media chose to preset the "number go up" picture. Reality is for every number that "goes up", another number goes down, and the number that goes down is the value of cash.

Real wages are not up for low earners. This is such an obvious math flaw I can't understand how nobody is challenging it. Real wages are adjusted for average inflation based on all consumers. However low earners experience much higher inflation than the average, at least double, and their consumption is vastly different (all of it is housing, food and energy in that order). Many of these low wage earners are periodically homeless or otherwise avoid paying bills to begin with.

> can't force people to understand economics

People were actively deceived along the way. Do you remember that intially Yellen (and Powell together) called the inflation "not broad enough to be considered inflation", then called it "transitory" and justified printing so much money all the way into 7% inflation. At 3% PCE, Powell said everybody to relax, that nobody should doubt they will use every tool they have to fight inflation. Bostic at 2% PCE said he is not worried, he welcomes higher inflation, approaching 4% inflation would be cause of concern and would require action. Action that never came. They just lied and misinformed the people for years. People listened to this, it was all over the media. It's wrong to suggest people didn't listen.

Do you remember after 5 years of review they came up with symmetric inflation target of 2% and they instantly abandoned it because that would require lower inflation for decades to come. And nobody in media questioned it, they said people "misunderstood the target".

They don't want to educate people about the economy, they want people as stupid as possible.

> massive influx of personal anecdotes

a.k.a. sampling from the distribution of interest. Once you have enough anecdotes, you actually have a representative distribution of the real thing. Selection may be biased but you can weight those data points as you like, it's still good data.

It used to be a casino. Now it's a matter of monetary policy transmission and a national security issue. They fully and shamelessly embraced the wealth effect as the driving force of the economy. Market always has to go up or else bad things are going to happen.

It depends. Some banks will ask for root origin of funds. Say you earned some money 20 years ago, invested them with various brokers into stocks all over the world, real estate etc. And then cashed a large sum into your account. If any one of those transactions is flagged they will require you to go back 20 years and collect those invoices that you earned and then you have to collect every transaction from the brokers, this may involve foreign jurisdictions where record keeping and querying is not available from 20 years ago.

So you will fail the disclosure and the bank will flag you in the shared blacklist DBs, they close your accounts and you are out of the system. This is happening enmasse to people who invested in and cashed out of real estate abroad(asia/africa/sa) some time ago. I imagine it's the same with foreign stock markets. And you never know what will be required 20 years in the future, thus most financial advisors discourage "moving money around". They even have a whitelist of brokers, stocks and jurisdictions, anything outside that is uninvestable for normal people just because of KYC/AML paperwork requirements.