zmibes

In this scenario would it not be attractive for investors to fund multiple (all, even) companies conducting the research into a given field/advancement knowing they will loose money on most but one will capture the benefit? (which, per the premise, is greater than the cost)

sorry to hear it was short-sighted. How did you come to those figures on comparison of public and private money into LLM research?

Which makes sense and also prompts the question: Why is research funded by public money published in journals that are not freely available to the public?

thank you for this thoughtful response

why do we need the state in the loop?

Just musing don't be angry with me, but seems rather circular that R&D needs public money in order to benefit the economy. Over-simplistic I suppose, but I'd think if it were economically productive it would be able to make a self-sustaining feedback loop.

edit: ideologues already attaK! sad to see ><

My experience of it in Lisbon was undramatic. I was able to buy medication from the pharmacy. Life continued as usual more or less apart from some inconveniences, people playing cards in the street and a sense of everyone stepping away from the tech. Eyes were rolled as the reflexive suggestions of "putin" were inevitably voiced, more to make conversation than anything else. I met neighbours that I'd never talked to before, and reconnected with some I hadn't talked to for years. People played guitar on their balconies rather than spotify bluetooth speaker pop. The neighbourhood cheered as it came back online but part of me, selfishly, would have liked a few more hours of blackout.

Would have been a very different story if it were a week rather than a day, but I was left with a sense that this complex community of locals and foreigners is stronger than I previously suspected.

self-satisfied is pretty much the official editorial style of the guardian

> A death tax is a tax on death. It's not that. It's a birth windfall wealth tax.

weasel words if ever there was.

i've enjoyed the fluidity of startup software work. have a job for a bit, it's exciting, the thing blows up or goes bust. get a new job. hire some other devs. have to fire them because out of cash (sorry, no hard feelings i hope). burning out? quit!

maybe i'm just in a fortunate enough position to be able to take risks, but i have no interest at all in unions, strikes, secret conversations that the article suggests. would be a mild red flag for hiring for me (expressing overt interest in unionizing). it has a hint of difficult to work with, politicising the workplace, power games.

i will say this though: talk about salaries with your colleagues (if you want)! employers have the deck stacked in their favour with this taboo and there is no good reason to uphold it afaiks as an employee. the more you all know the better position you are in. don't need a special club with dues and leaders for that

Good one

Happy to help :)

Any non-abserd definition of free speech concerns the expression of ideas rather than allowing hyperlinks to competitor platforms. I don't see this as a violation of free speech at all

Not a Twitter fan or a social media user but I see no problem with this at all. Looks like a private company playing hardball with competitors. I don't see any hypocracy unless you adopt some very neive definition of protecting free speech

While this is, of course, a racist counterargument, it is also correct. Doing research without a activist agenda is now a political stance. The sooner neutrals realise this the better