Infinity315

Just because I am anti-propping-up-the-stock-market does not mean I am a communist. I am a liberal who believes in capital markets.

For the 10%, the stock market crashing just means cutting back on primarily discretionary spend - think no new car and maybe not buying the family new iPhones every year - they're not in any danger of going hungry, especially if they have any sense.

There are plenty of arguments to be made for infrastructure projects, for example, why not build out more power generation and transmission?

Yea, the article is littered with Claudisms. You can see the: "it's not this, it's that."

I'm not an OpenAI simp, but how anyone can have any opinion on the performance of these models in less than a day - let alone a few hours - is beyond me.

Keep in mind for Anthropic the goal for them isn't necessarily to solve a problem but to demonstrate/measure the innate capabilities of their model. Many results would be a lot less interesting/impressive for an LLM to accomplish if researchers smuggled in key premises or ideas within their prompt.

This is useful to me since I delegate most coding tasks to Opus and use Fable for planning.

So many ideas involving AI just seems to be built off of sci-fi (not in a good way), including this one. Like sci-fi, there are little practical considerations made.

What? Fundamentally, information can only be so dense. Current models may be inefficient w.r.t. information density, however, there is a lower bound of compute required. As a pathological example, we shouldn't expect a megabyte worth of parameters to be able to encode the entirety of Wikipedia.

I thought recycle was the breaking down of the device into its constituents (mostly to recover precious metals or other base materials). In contrast, reuse is where the device is kept mostly intact and used for other purposes such as this. Just breaking things down requires considerable amounts of energy through the sheer logistics of it relative to just reusing it.

It might make more sense to think of in terms of expected value. Whilst the probability may be low, the payoff is probably many times the $250M if their startup becomes successful.

That's measuring desirability--or at least immediate desirability, which is sometimes related but distinct from wealth.

It also quickly becomes meaningless as people risking life and limb tend to flee to the nearest stable country. For example, Syrian refugees for the most part tended to stay close to their home country with the majority fleeing to nearby Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq--or, moving elsewhere within Syria.

Measuring wealth of a country by measuring how many refugees it takes in is like projecting future revenue/success of a convenience store by measuring how many people come into the store during an active-shooter situation.

Going by your metric, it would suggest that a Pole is wealthier than a Brit because Poland has nearly 1 million Ukrainian refugees to the UK's .25 mil.

A similar argument could be made for any safety feature that adds cost to vehicles--literally, all of them. If a death is preventable and adds on a relatively inconsequential amount to the cost of a vehicle, then it is the morally correct choice optimize for safety.

Can you answer the question?

How do you define what is needed? The vast majority of reporting does not affect one's own behaviour at all. For example, consider the Snowden leaks, I guarantee you the vast majority of people did not even attempt to modify their own behaviour at all in light of this new information--despite having read or heard about it.

I'd argue that this reporting was still needed, despite it having very little material impact on one's life.