atom_arranger

It would actually be interesting for police agencies to use agents to go through unsolved crimes using all available data to look for clues. I think it's justified for some violent crimes at least.

Per capita. GDP is not meaningful for the average person most of the time. Norway has a very high GDP per capita, but a lower GDP than Canada. Would it make life better for them if they suddenly had double the GDP and double the population? Probably not really, might be more crowded.

Canadians might be able to produce more innovation if there wasn't so much inflation and tax burden due to high immigration.

Sometimes to look like a genius you have to look incompetent for a bit.

In a place operating with SCRUM you're often expected to be shipping things every sprint, and sometimes with a large and important piece of work the experimentation, and the building of the thing, doesn't fit in a sprint, and if you tried to ship incrementally you'd just be shipping junk.

So you're going to end up giving some standup updates that do not inspire confidence for a bit. "I tried this thing, didn't work out", "still working on X, tried another thing", etc.

It's possible at the end of it you figure it out, and the result justifies the time investment.

The spiral is friction with a system that disincentivizes taking on ambitious goals.

I wouldn't just blame the engineer for not shipping smaller things, being less ambitious, talking more instead of working, I'd blame the company culture for disincentivizing deep work and ambitious goals.

Obviously there's a limit to this. You do need to ship something useful eventually. It's possible you spend extra time and still fail to accomplish the thing you wanted. It might be damaging to your reputation. You win some you lose some.

With AI there's less time between having the idea to do something or try something, and it being done or ruled out, so I see this being less of an issue now. The main barrier is knowing what to do and describing it.

That's a good point. It's just kind of surprising, there's been a lot of incremental progress towards rendering and simulation for a long time. If you'd asked 10 years ago if we'd have AGI or realistic realtime rendering and physics of a single room first I think most people would have answered the former.

Another interesting discrepancy is that people think current GPUs are maybe capable of running AGI but they still can barely manage photorealistic rendering of a single room in realtime, or simulate something like a shirt thrown into a pile of laundry. They can generate a video of it based on millions of existing videos, but not do a real simulation of light and physics in realtime.

The other challenge with real people is the emotional aspect. Easier and faster to tell ai the code it wrote is terrible and needs to be redone completely, or maybe you just end the session and use a new model. Trickier to do with a human.

I don’t have a lot of experience related to this so I’m just noting some things.

Some people in this thread don’t seem to think it’s that hard or overcomplicated.

When reading Designing Data-Intensive Applications my main takeaway was that event sourcing can make it easier to solve a lot of issues like performance, scaling, consistency, auditability, etc.

It would be interesting to look into what a low overhead way of implementing CRUD with event sourcing in Postgres would look like, then decide if it’s too complex.

Can you elaborate on 4 a bit, are you saying to always use event sourcing, or something like it?

I'm not claiming everyone uses the terms this way but for your consideration:

Geeks - Obsessed over fictional world(s). Nerds - Obsessed over the real world (or a specific part of it).

Comics Geek Math Nerd

There's a decent amount of overlap though.

Breaking and entering is to immigrating as pickpocketing is to taking my stuff.

Sometimes immigration is legal. Sometimes taking my stuff is legal.

There’s often overlap between legality and what people support or oppose, but not always.

“I oppose something that’s already against the rules” is a simpler/easier argument, rather than saying “I oppose the against the rules thing, and some of the stuff that isn’t against the rules currently”. I think that's why people make this argument of "only against illegal immigration". I agree it could be deceitful, taking the easier argument. It’s also not a tactic that works long term though if it just results in the immigration they were against being made legal. A stronger anti immigration stance, legal or illegal, would be a better starting point.

To be fair there may also be some people who a couple years ago really did only oppose illegal immigration but were then exposed to new information, and changed their mind to oppose some or all legal immigration as well.

a. Opposed to someone taking my money against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.

b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.

a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.

b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.

There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.

Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.

In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.

An alternative chain of events might be one where OpenAI, Inc. only operated through income and donations, which would probably lead to them scaling more slowly. They could also take on loans.

Having thought about this whole thing more I believe that non-profits should not be a separate type of entity that gets special tax treatment. People have different ideas of what constitutes legitimate non-profit activity. It just opens things up for tax avoidance and scams.

The interested parties would be taxpayers. I think some groups are trying to look into it.

The issue is that they did R&D as a charity, donations to which are tax deductible, there may also be other benefits to being a charity during R&D but that’s a big one, then once the thing works, setup a for profit, sell ip at “fair value”, get some investment, then things are ready for business.

I read there’s no statute of limitations on a tax issue like this, so I guess it might be hanging over them indefinitely.

I’m not a big taxation and government fan, they’d probably just waste the money anyways. It does seem unfair OpenAI gets to use this loophole though, unless all companies can make their R&D investment tax deductible, and get any other benefits of this setup.

Aside from the disagreements between these parties, what about the precedent of running a non-profit, and then transferring all IP to a for profit when it’s convenient to do so?

I wonder if the government or taxpayers have a case to bring regarding that.

The anti piracy stance would be making it illegal for a surgeon/person to copy the procedure another surgeon invented without payment. Copying does not require additional labor from the inventor.

Obviously we would like the inventor of the procedure to be compensated, but is it worth depriving other people, or potentially them dying, to protect "intellectual property"?