asib

> The money is being spent whether it's distributed to the masses and spent on food, or spent on a yacht.

I don't follow what point you're trying to make here.

> If anything it should be deflationary because the rich mostly don't spend their money, else they wouldn't be rich.

The exact opposite is the case. "The rich", like all people who are able to put money aside for retirement/savings, seek to secure their wealth by diversifying their portfolio. In other words, they buy assets.

The other part is that ultra wealthy people will pay far above market value for basically everything, which creates inflationary pressure.

Because of inflation. If there are people with astronomically more wealth than the rest of the population, they will push up prices. There is no such thing as a "high floor" in a system where there is extreme wealth inequality.

What is shipping like from Zoro? The number one reason I tend to use Amazon for this stuff (nuts/bolts) is because shipping is free given a Prime subscription.

If I buy a handful of bolts from McMaster or BoltDepot, I'm paying like $10 to ship, on an order this is probably $10 in goods :(

So I'm basically always picking between Amazon and AliExpress.

It's for worse. Stop clicking on twitter/nitter/xitter links, stop following those people. If they care to keep you as an audience, they will move to another platform.

> It's fair since it takes their team members an equivalent amount of time

Well, they're being paid to do that. That's part of the unfairness. The other part is the time is bounded on the employer side. On the prospective employee side, it's unbounded - you're interviewing until you get a job somewhere.

It doesn't seem to account for earthquakes, which is appropriate, since it's a climate vulnerability index. But definitely something one would take into account when deciding where to settle.

Does anyone have any understanding of how they do this?

My knowledge of how these models work is basically that they are a black box that you put text into and get text out of. I don't phrase it this way to diminish their capability, but more to ask how, other than using a technique like stenography, are they able to hide their true chain of thought in a recoverable way?

The opposite of modesty is not "buying a Ferrari". Anyone at any level of wealth can be immodest.

Not saying I agree with GP, but your point doesn't hold up.

You said:

> For all you know, 90% of the proof could be useless, 8% would be writing out Shakespeare, and 1% abusing another bug in Lean.

So you were implying the possibility of there not actually being a proof at all.

Anyway, I disagree. I'd refer you to Tao's blog post about the Jacobian conjecture counterexample.

The existence of a proof is something you can use, with an LLM, to derive insight, just as Tao did with the existence of the counterexample.

Tao is saying that there is very little insight from something like an LLM counterexample (e.g. Jacobian conjecture counterexample he investigated further on his blog) - you don't learn much about the subject and _why_ a conjecture was true or false from an LLM giving a counterexample. That's why he wrote the blog post - to analyse what the counterexample says about the subject.

Tao does not disbelieve the counterexample (it's seemingly easy enough for him to verify it is a counterexample).

Parent is saying something very different - they're saying they literally don't have any faith that this is a proof. Given its size, it could just be a bunch of completely useless statements that do pass the type checker.

No, condescending people call them "aspiring". Anyone who knows and likes art calls them artists.

To the credit of the original commenter, that is why they said "give it one or two years". _Right now_ we need the experts to formalize/check. They're saying they think LLMs will reach a point in the near future where that won't be necessary.

It doesn't mean preposterous or not preposterous. It does mean there is general dispute regarding the proscription.

Appealing to it is not really progressing your argument. Both decisions are controversial, you don't make a more convincing argument as to why one controversial decision should not be considered controversial, by pointing to a different, also controversial, decision.