Recent submissions

Comment · 14 hours ago
No, post-IPO they will have to (at some point) demonstrate real commercial value. This just gets them to a stage to cash out insiders and (less importantly) get some additional capital to extend their runway.

That's the playbook, right - keep interest/investment flowing until you can figure out the actual commercial value/model. Until then, do whatever you need to keep the hype as high as possible and maximise your runway.

Comment · 1 day ago
Yes? I expect their motivation for devoting resources to solve these problems will dramatically drop as soon as they IPO. Maths is just a convenient vanity metric for OpenAI to demonstrate progress, but long term progress in mathematics has no commercial value to them.

Of course, general improvements may be sufficient to continue to drive math improvements even without specific attention - we’ll see.

Comment · 5 months ago
There are plenty of links in the article to support specific statements, you can just skip over the parts where he expresses frustration at the damage to an incredible asset the US has built over many years, and the long term consequences this will have for the US and for the world.

It’s a pity he can’t be as measured and scientific in his communication as the current US administration, but we can’t all aspire to that level of technocratic excellence.

Comment · 8 months ago
Essentially yes. Companies paid the tariff costs, largely passed this on to consumers via higher prices, and now companies are due the tariff costs back. Consumers of course won’t get anything back.

Well done America.

Comment · 10 months ago
I don’t think LLMs contradict the Pinker description - it just turns out that the output stream embodies a lot of information, and you can construct a model (of some reasonable fidelity) of the original sources from sufficient examples of the output stream.
Comment · 1 year ago
I responded to a comment that called progressive taxation a crazy “far left” idea - I’m not sure the second and third order details of taxation policy are really relevant here…

But ok - yes, sure, in real life it’s a mix and the mix is worth debating. Note also that consumption taxes often have exemptions/reductions to offset the most severe regressive effects.

Comment · 1 year ago
It’s very, very basic economics - the marginal utility of money decreases, so progressive taxation is better than regressive taxation.
Comment · 1 year ago
On point 2 - notice how flat your graph is for the last 6k years?

Also, why do you think the impact of past changes on a tiny group of humans living as hunter gatherers is of any relevance to 8 billion people living in the modern world (including, for example, in massive coastal cities?)

Comment · 1 year ago
Of course humans have a significant effect on climate change - the steelman versions of why that doesn’t matter are: 1) It doesn’t matter because we will figure out some technological solution in the future. Or 2) it doesn’t matter since I personally will be ok (because I am rich and/or live in a rich country that can afford to pay the costs)
Comment · 1 year ago
We are (for genes, though, not sperm)
Comment · 1 year ago
Surely you see the difference between working in a development environment and working in production?
Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
America is the richest country in the world. Guess you won’t know how good you have it until you destroy it.
Comment · 1 year ago
VAT has nothing to do with this.
Comment · 1 year ago
No, you are simply incorrect, a VAT system does not make it harder for US companies to compete. It's explained well here: https://www.economicforces.xyz/p/stop-saying-a-value-added-t...

For those who don't follow the link, here's an extract from the article explaining the core situation:

Imagine a car that costs $30,000 to produce before tax. Now compare four scenarios:

1) BMW sells the car in Germany (domestic sale): Germany’s VAT (let’s say 20% for simplicity) is added on the final sale. The German consumer pays 20% VAT, i.e., an extra $6,000, for a total price of $36,000. BMW forwards that $6,000 to the German government as VAT.

2) BMW exports the car to the U.S.: Since the car is exported, BMW does not charge German VAT. Any VAT BMW paid on parts or inputs is refunded by the German tax authority. The U.S. buyer pays the $30,000 price, and since the U.S. has no federal VAT, there’s no equivalent federal tax on that sale. (A state sales tax might apply at the point of sale, but we’ll come back to that.) The key point: the German government collects no VAT on an item consumed in the U.S.. This makes complete sense because that car’s being enjoyed by an American buyer, not a German resident.

3) GM sells the car in the U.S. (domestic sale): The U.S. has no VAT, so the American consumer pays $30,000 (ignoring any state sales tax). No federal consumption tax is collected. (In states with a sales tax, the consumer might pay, say, 7% extra to the state government, but again, the federal treatment is no tax.)

4) GM exports the car to Germany: When the car arrives in Germany, it faces the same 20% VAT as any car sold in Germany. So a German customer buying the American-made car pays $30,000 + $6,000 VAT = $36,000. That $6,000 goes to the German government. From GM’s perspective, it doesn’t owe U.S. tax on that export sale (since the U.S. doesn’t tax exports of goods), but its product will bear German VAT when consumed in Germany.

What outcome do we have here? In Germany, both the BMW and the GM car cost the same $36,000 after tax, and the German government collects VAT on both. In the U.S., both cars cost $30,000 before any state sales taxes, and the U.S. government collects no federal consumption tax on either. Each country taxes consumption within its borders—no matter where the product came from—and does not tax consumption outside its borders. This is precisely the goal of destination-based taxation: neutrality. Consumers in each country face the same tax on a given product, whether it’s domestically produced or imported. And neither country’s producers carry their home consumption tax as a “ball and chain” when they go compete in foreign markets.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton