eldritch_4ier

Maybe it’s semantics, but generally with fund allocation when you’re deploying more than 1% of your AUM towards a single thesis that’s a significant bet.

Nobody bought a Tesla in the last 5 years because “I want fewer highway fatalities”, they often bought it because they thought the overhyped self driving features would let them chill out on their commute.

People want self driving cars so bad because driving everywhere sucks (and sitting on public transit sucks too). Routine travel is mundane and boring.

The decline in birth rates seems like it has little to do with people being unable to afford children and more with the culture.

Richer countries have fewer kids. Richer people have fewer kids.

Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage.

“The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to experience it - it’s self evident.

Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art. A silent song isn’t art. These are just childish, amateurish displays only enjoyed by a nihilistic culture devoid of meaning. If what you make only counts as art because it “starts a conversation” about how stupid and garbage and insulting it is, then it’s not art at all.

Because even customers don’t always know what they want. A lot of customers want peace of mind when they’re buying a product, and you can’t always build up that trust in a single call, so a white lie that gets them as a customers as long as you can fully deliver on that promise seems optimal for both parties.

Telling a customer “we don’t have that yet” knowing full well they just care if you have it, and knowing full well you can deliver it as promised, just creates unnecessary doubt that could lead to a worse situation for everyone. One where a customer passes on you because they don’t know you well enough to trust you can deliver, and you don’t get the sale because you didn’t happen to create some very simple feature before a customer demanded it. That’s a lose-lose.

This complaint just reeks of “I’ve never worked in a company or role that didn’t already have all the uncertainty figured out”. Building features nobody wants as insurance in case somebody finally asks for it is a waste of human talent.

Once you get accepted they do further diligence (that can take several weeks if you’re missing things or have been sloppy) to get it all together before they give you the money and let you do demo day.

Don’t we all known someone who is very widely read, but makes the occasional error or mistake? Gets confused about something, or is asked about a discipline they don’t understand or haven’t researched very deeply? Maybe they misremember a date here or there, but are otherwise fairly intelligent? Maybe they work a data entry job making a middle class salary.

This is basically where ChatGPT is at. It’s a very widely read person with an excellent memory and quick mind. It’s probably smarter than the average human (certainly in breadth, often in depth), not to mention a comparison of it to the average human globally.

ChatGPT is smarter than the average human already. It doesn’t need agency or a soul to do so. We already have AGI, we just keep moving the goal posts.

I think things like this have been tried (like shipping container homes). Problem isn’t lack of capital for a solution like this, it’s lack of demand and zoning issues.

Houses made out of dirt or cargo containers don’t appreciate all that well, so while you have a shelter over your head, you’re still just throwing money away as if you’re renting (except you also have a mortgage with a big down payment and interest).

Maybe you could address homelessness with enough of these and made cheaply enough, but it won’t affect the housing crisis so much, because people want affordable but appreciating homes. Like the desire to buy cheap stocks that go up a lot, it’s easier said than done.

This list is biased in a few ways, so it’s harder to calm these “major problems” when some of them are just fear mongered out of proportion.

To round it out though, here’s another list:

Uplifting the many men falling out of society

Protecting children and their parental rights

Reforming harmful public sector unions like schools and police

Eliminating systemically racist anti white laws in everything from affirmative action to farm subsidies

Eliminating anti white bias in hiring

Reversing the rapidly declining birth rates

Reducing the normalization of sexual degeneracy from porn addiction to the proliferation of digital prostitution (onlyfans)

Reversing the declining trust in institutions (media, public health, DOJ, etc)

What is incredibly well established is that g is incredibly predictive for many life outcomes from income to educational attainment to drug addiction. This is what IQ test measures.

The only thing disputed is whether g is the same thing as “intelligence”, and the only dispute there is from softer science fields because “intelligence” is a word without a precise definition and a lot of feelings and opinions wrapped up in it.

Is this real? That’s incredible if so.

Nah it’s definitely gotten worse in my experience. I played with an early access version late last year/early this year and there’s been a strong correlation between how hard they restrict it and how good it is.

Queries it used to blow away it now struggles with.

The best individual action you can do is agitate for political and corporate change. Almost all the blame is on corporations and government bodies. The emissions of individuals pales in comparison.

Yes, inflation in Europe is the very same phenomenon with their counterpart actors.

You could say the same about Elon Musk or Nokola Tesla or many others. Just sounds like pure survivorship bias to me. "This crazy innovator died so clearly future innovators should listen to the experts!".