pptr

You can only make money if you produce value. If you stop producing value because your old industries decline/collapse and you miss out on new industries, your wealth will trend towards that of a third world country.

Right, but that negative externality is on emissions. For emissions it doesn't really matter who is producing the oil.

Let's say an agent needs to do 10 brain surgeries on a human to remove a tumor and a human doctor can do it in a single surgery. I would prefer the human.

"steps" are important to optimize if they have negative externalities.

(Based on AI research) fossile fuel production takes a few years to recoup investment. Only refineries seem quite long term (15-20 years). I'm sure the companies have projections about future demand to decide which projects are worth pursuing. If they miscalculate, the oil companies loose money (oh no! /s). Anyway, you won't loose money on this.

There is of course also an argument about national security, not being at the whim of some Iranian dictator. So some form of government investment would be justified, but not necessary IMO.

Voters in the US have the ability to actually change the course of their country. Voters can say they want Obama or Trump in charge and the government has to obey that choice.

In Europe you only have the same parties/"uniparty" in power all the time. Many people never had a representative they voted for.

I understand the nuance about the US voting system. But when I look at the outcomes, the US seems way more democratic than Europe.

Re gas demand: Renewables are cheaper than fossile fuels. They will obviously win out in a free market. No subsidies needed.

This really seems like a nothing burger.

The $1B were a refund. Net exchange ~$0.

Building out fossile fuel production shifts oil revenue from various dictatorships around the world to the US in this case. That's a good thing. I wish we in Europe produced more gas ourselves instead of being highly dependent on other countries.

This does not mean higher gas demand, which is what matters for CO2 reduction.

They only had to comply with EU laws when they were already a big player in China. EU manufacturers need their new vehicles to be compliant on day one. That is, if they want to launch in the EU market first. Audi recently launched a China-only car (AUDI E5 Sportback).

What is different about Deepseek's use of MoE vs all the other MoE models that makes training more efficient?

FP8 training and GRPO make sense to me, but that only gets you a 4x improvement total, right?

If you don't, your geopolitical adversary might be the first to build AGI.

So in this scenario I could see it become necessary from a military perspective.

Right, and that regulation has a cost. I hope it's worth it.

The mere existence of regulation is part of the problem. Without precise understanding of the law, you don't know if your use cases are fine/excempted. The safe default assumption is that your site is not compliant with regulations until you can prove otherwise, involving a lawyer.

Once you have a technological breakthrough that requires lots of exploration to figure out which products will succeed, regulation is a competitive disadvantage.

For established industries regulation just increases prices. ... Until a new technology comes up that allows new competitors to enter the market. Like Tesla, SpaceX.

If you declare using an invalidated iterator as UB, the compiler can optimize as if the container was effectively immutable during the loop.

Ignoring it means you need to get explicit consent, which is what the websites are already doing.

But then you don't have a company that can afford to build a 100b training cluster for example. If that becomes the new sota you are again left behind.