cbolton

> Taler has audit logs containing what token was used from which customer(id) with which merchant

This is completely wrong. The Taler exchange doesn't know which tokens you have. When you spend them as a customer, the merchant passes your tokens to the exchange. It's like physical coins: you give them to the merchant, the merchant deposits them in their account. The exchange know which merchant deposits the tokens but has no information on the customer because the tokens (like coins) are anonymous.

Some form of AI RSI is likely, but why would you expect the improvement at each level to stay proportional the level itself (which is required for exponential improvement), or even why would the rate of improvement stay above a particular constant (required for linear growth)?

To me the most likely scenario is RSI with diminishing returns, as the models get closer to the limits of the general approach to AI that they embody. The decreasing rate of improvement might look like a log curve, or even an horizontal asymptote. Not that scary.

Please digitize and post some of these recordings!

You make it sound like the center party is playing both sides but as I understand it is not part of that block, and they would be OK with social democrats but not far left in government. What's wrong with that?

The handwavy section on RISC-V is underwhelming. Yes the ecosystem is still nascent but something like the SpacemiT K3 is far from "abysmal" for vector operations and would make a nice test case with its two core types both supporting RVV 1.0 (one with vlen 256, the other with vlen 1024). On the more industrial side, for example the SiFive Intelligence X280 has been used in TPU by Google for years already and I doubt they are the only ones so calling the ISA completely irrelevant is a bit of a stretch.

Just for the sake of curiosity it would be nice to have a peek at what SIMD in Rust looks like on RISC-V today. Yes, even if it requires some "obscure compiler flags" for now (while we wait for the Oilsm extension).

> Over 10% of the country will be in the top 1% of earners at some point in their life

Though most of them only for one year due to temporary revenue, so it's not that rational.

The republican program was in large part vetoed by Clinton though and the spending cuts that passed were largely offset by the tax cuts. From what I read the reduction in deficit is mostly due to the dot-com boom, helped with the "deficit reduction act" of 1993 that was pushed by Clinton and happened to hike taxes at the right time to tax the boom.

I completely agree.

Why the aggressive tone and the strawman rhetoric? I never said there was a consensus. Yes I'm talking more about the "optimistic" commenters and pointing out that this chess thing is a good datum to temper their enthusiasm. What's wrong with that?

Also these claims are not completely without merit, it's just that LLMs seem to excel at specific "cognitive" tasks and it's interesting to see where they fail.

Neither. As I said I want to measure cognitive abilities.

Your "ability of the box" is like "economic potential" in my previous comment. If that's what you want to measure, fine. But I want a deeper understanding: what is the thing doing, how is it solving problems? I want to get a sense of its abilities that is richer than a one-dimensional scale.

Well it's not a perfect test so you need a bit of care in how you use it. If you have no idea what the subject is doing, then you don't know if you're measuring cognitive ability or something else (like cheating ability, or algorithmic sophistication or whatever). But failing the test is a pretty clear sign of certain cognitive abilities being poor.