Your point that “people will be gobsmacked” suggests you think you know something that the broad market does not. In a loose way, that implies the market has enough information to anticipate this but is not pricing assets accordingly. Asked another way, why not just short American assets if you are convinced of your hypothesis? Why live here, assuming you do?
Didn’t read your links but wonder how they deal with selection bias. People at increased risk for stroke or bleeding disorders, even if just self perceived risk, are told to favor acetaminophen because of the risk inherent in ibuprofen and naproxen sodium.
I know you’re joking, but there is a very small sliver of truth in there somewhere. There are some tools on windows that stand shoulder to shoulder with better os’s.
Well, you’ve convinced me. Ai changes nothing, so then we should be terrified of the capital being poured into and the opportunity costs lost to the current thing(tm).
Should we control nuclear weapons? Is nuclear technology of the sort we’re fighting a war over right now a bigger technological advance than AI when it comes to war fighting capabilities? I suppose if you think ai is nothing big, it makes sense to not want to control it. Or, if you are all for widespread nuclear proliferation, then your position would make sense. ELSE: you’re totally illogical.
Not to mention how they will be used by terrorists and evil people to create biological weapons and other tools of mass slaughter. Or how it will be/is being used by criminals to target vulnerable people and businesses. Or how coupled with drone warfare the world becomes an unlivable hellhole in the next decade. But Marc Andreesan said only losers are against “tech accelerationiism” on twitter so here we are.
This is social media unless you change your nick often, but even then people run stylometric analysis all over this site. Nobody is truly anonymous on the internet.
I think much of this might apply to Callard: her high public visibility in social media, the attention grabbing colorful attire, her as I recall public advocacy and openness about her own polyamorous lifestyle. I don’t think that’s typical. Certainly it’s not for me. I’d rather be Zelig. But I think most people code shift, and present different personas in private life compared to work. Probably much less so for the average substack author, so it surprises me little the idea might resonate with Derek Thompson, the blog’s author.
I agree, and I think it’s due to the decline of executive cognition and the behavioral training of the TV generation. They believe the news, and grew up in a time when trust was aplenty.
Is it less secure if I simply have nothing to do with language models whatsoever? I take that to be the parents point, but I know you are correct and yes, user restrictions should be a necessary part of the way people who use LLMs setup their system to use them in a safe manner.
> hang $5/gal gas and $14 fast food combos on Trump
In my mind, this is anachronistic thinking. The average poor person isn’t as concerned about gas or burger prices as boomer politicos think. The difficulty most Americans face now is neither of those, it is housing and energy costs, and increasingly jobs. Your typical homeless person isn’t stressing on how they’ll get their next burger. There very little sunlight between the parties on these big issues. Neither party has moved the needle on housing aside from inflating costs. They can’t. Nobody that owns wants housing prices to collapse, and the economy wouldn’t stand it, and even if they did want housing prices to collapse, it’s impossible to scale up production enough to lower costs. We can at most flatten the second derivative. And jobs? Jobs can be created through stimulus like the inflation reduction act, but that causes inflation. And those jobs, having been artificially produced, will be quickly liquidated when the stimulus runs dry.
A more concrete example: SBF infamously said he doesn’t read books. While he was obviously not very bright in many ways, I’m certain there are heavy book readers who are far less bright or informed. I know, because I’ve met them. My only point is that there exists a bias towards books that is sometimes but often not warranted.
He said it’s less than a software, so saying software does this too isn’t really a strong counter argument. In case, I don’t think you are really in disagreement. Restricted accounts are necessary is your point, but I think op is saying they aren’t sufficient.
I just look at the comments first. I probably shouldn’t give away these hn secrets so freely, but people will always comment if it’s ai, or not worth reading, or won’t load, and in the early hn days it actually helped submitters avoid the hug of death. Also works for paywalled; someone will comment the archived version.
So you have a 30 person RCT, half the treatment bails midway through, you include the assigned but not treated (ITT) in the analysis. That’s going to give you the power to make a definitive statement while a large scale longitudinal with n=50,000 will not?
No the point, as I understand it, is that with enough missiles, enforcing the JCPOA becomes impossible. Iran can dominate other regional powers, cause global suffering, decide they want to build nuclear weapons after all and not much can be done to stop them. As we are seeing, they are powerful enough now that Trump isn’t having an easy time winning, and it may even impact the midterms it’s that bad.
I just saw a clip, from the recent 92nd street y interview. I’m not saying missiles are nuclear weapons. I’m simply saying the JCPOA was flawed according to her. Not that she thinks it should have been repealed entirely. She argues Trump could have extended or expanded it, but of course she would say that because she wasn’t the one tasked with renegotiating it with them.
I think that can be true and probably is, but it seems like an over simplification. If you spend 14 hours a day reading Wikipedia and studying it, say working math equations, cross referencing sources, etc… is that really going to make you understand less than someone who reads enormously long but low quality romance novels for the same number of hours?
Hillary Clinton was interviewed recently and she was refreshingly candid about the glaring problems with the “Obama deal” which most notably was that it did nothing to prevent Iran from amassing a large stockpile of ballistic missiles and giving support to violent factions like the Yemeni’s who you may recall used such to disrupt global trade. It was better than nothing, and maybe good, but it’s worth adding context when someone describes it as “really good.” Hillary Clinton wouldn’t use that phrase.