0x3f

11 ms·

151.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
> AGI is very close Based on? Or are you just quoting Anthropic here?
152.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Its existence is possible.
153.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Those gains are arch based, data quality based, etc. Scaling laws only relate to data volume and compute, holding other factors constant.
154.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
All the curves have been levelling off as expected. Not really sure what you're talking about.
155.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Based on a glance at their other comments: not satire.
156.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Perhaps, but I'd venture the ear of the regime is even more valuable.
157.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
But nobody is going to just gift him the same valuation on the next company. It's not like his execution is OpenAI's moat right now. So where would he be going that's a better deal for him?
158.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Well we were talking about power and reputation and being well-known and all that. Being more ubiquitous is surely a big part of that. GP seems to think Anthropic is doing better because of the DoD thing. In my estimation, 90% of people
159.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
It's because they're really good at the kind of busywork the average white collar job requires. Most people are out there writing documents and making presentations. Only when you use them for actual complexity does the shortfal
160.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
OpenAI has ~30x the userbase of Anthropic.
161.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
But climbing a hill does make you closer to the moon. There's nothing wrong with incremental progress towards a goal, assuming this is a goal for the free-market people. Also, I'm not sure a free market is technology-free per se.
162.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Stalin to Kruschev was in a very different context. I don't see any way that Russia's next leader is someone cuddlier, unless through some forcing event.
163.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Right, those are the current technologies we have to make markets work in a particular way. They don't preclude other technologies which work with freer markets. Like there's a whole zoo of healthcare provision approaches, for ex
164.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
> It just sounds like he was just fine leaving his family for a job. Or... maybe he needs income to exist.
165.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
I'm not sure I really understand. What do you mean by "never gonna work"? Because markets obviously do largely work, despite the fact that people are not perfectly rational and there are other inefficiencies at the edges.
166.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
The EU has a hard time agreeing how to do anything, but the net effect for Russia seems about the same either way. If the 'freezing' lasts forever, what is the practical difference from the Russian perspective?
167.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
To me frozen and seized are roughly interchangeable and mean, minimally, a temporary capture of control of an asset. Although maybe there's some strict legal difference I'm not aware of, I'm not sure there's much practi
168.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Sure he might want to do that, but I think his behavior shows he's still beholden to the markets to a large degree. A lot of his (self?) image is tied into 'economic performance', rightly or wrongly.
169.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
I'm not sure this is true. What you're describing is the local optimum problem. Yes, the local optimum is better if you can't push through to a better one, of course. And heading merely 'towards' the better optim
170.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
The guy only releases bad news when the markets are closed to avoid some minor corrections. I doubt he's about to crash the gold market.
171.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Not really Trump-specific is it, given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets. Maybe they just realized how easy that was and that nobody is going to war over it.
172.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
In the UK, they split the infra provider (Openreach) from the consumer company (BT). So it's no longer BT giving access to the other providers. In theory, BT has no special access to the infra at all, and they're on a level playi
173.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Is your contention that we _have_ achieved some pure form of free markets or Communism?
174.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Perhaps you won't be able to exist in private without a smart phone. Or there will be some technology beyond a smartphone that you can't exist without.
175.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
It's funny because this is also the exact German response for when your neighbour has an unsanctioned BBQ.
176.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
> So's "we don't have natural rights". That's the null hypothesis. There are no teapots orbiting the sun, either.
177.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
We're all essentially here under the goal of making non-boring statements for each other, yes. That is the general purpose of an online forum.
178.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply ass
179.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass.
180.
by 0x3f 6mo ago
The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is no

More ›