roflyear

21 ms·

271.
by roflyear 3y ago
It's not true that we're printing money like there is no tomorrow. Look: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S This is as % of GDP, but it's a good stand-in for inflation. Deficits are going dow
272.
by roflyear 3y ago
Careful saying that around here ;)
273.
by roflyear 3y ago
Agreed that GDP in isolation is a poor measure, but when you take it in context (every report is done the same way) and with other financial data it can help paint a picture (still an imperfect picture).
274.
by roflyear 3y ago
Didn't address my point, but thank you for the comment.
275.
by roflyear 3y ago
I just don't understand how this has anything to do with the wealth tax. It's not an argument against a wealth tax, it's an argument in favor of a specific implementation: what value we're using to calculate the tax. &gt
276.
by roflyear 3y ago
> Is the tax assessed value of your house actually the same or higher as its most recent market value? Why does this matter? Set an "appraised" value of stock portfolios > $10m, make it like the "worst downturn last 100
277.
by roflyear 3y ago
I don't know what you're arguing. You can contest the appraised value but rarely will you win unless it's egregious.
278.
by roflyear 3y ago
Certain assets mature without tax implications. You can take out the loan on the equities, then as your bonds mature, pay down the loan.
279.
by roflyear 3y ago
Homes are reduced to like-buckets at some point by necessity, but they are absolutely not treated like commodities. If we did, you'd have to have a huge margin - something like 20-30%, or even more, to account for risk. You're ups
280.
by roflyear 3y ago
> Faith is the (a) recognition that we're limited beings whose perception and thinking are ultimately inadequate to understand objective reality and (b) a set of beliefs you take on for dealing with that unknowable space. This is fi
281.
by roflyear 3y ago
Why are you assuming he's a patent troll? Because the headline says so? :)
282.
by roflyear 3y ago
Disappointing to see this level of discourse on HN. Flagged.
283.
by roflyear 3y ago
Then we demonstrated it lacks the capability of general understanding.
284.
by roflyear 3y ago
You can always make up excuses for things, this is a simple grammar and it can't learn it. A person can be taught to understand this grammar - the machine lacks understanding.
285.
by roflyear 3y ago
It just doesn't seem to me like you're trying to have a good faith discussion. I asked it to learn this basic grammar (then clarified when it made mistakes, and eventually got it to agree to a grammar like this): Let’s make a basi
286.
by roflyear 3y ago
If you can't give me an example, I'm going to continue to assume it can't learn a grammar. It isn't hard to come up with a simple (useless) grammar. Why not prove your assertation?
287.
by roflyear 3y ago
1) What do you think the phrase "the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars" means? 2) Can you give me an example of you teaching an LLM a grammar?
288.
by roflyear 3y ago
If you make up definitions, anything can be anything. Words have meanings and should be used precisely, or if used in a different context or a different way, they should be explained. This helps people understand you , and allows them to i
289.
by roflyear 3y ago
This is why I am asking you to define understanding: your definition of understanding and mine seem to be very different. I agree it's the "first" definition of understanding, not "process and analyze that data, recogniz
290.
by roflyear 3y ago
"It would only take a couple more points of interest to make all of the US Treasury spreadsheets go from the bright red they're already at to flashing red with klaxons." This is hyperbole: if you increase rates by even 2x deb
291.
by roflyear 3y ago
It's a fair assessment, but naive to assume it can be reasonably accomplished.
292.
by roflyear 3y ago
> By 2028 the loan payments we make on all that debt/money we printed will only cover the interest, no longer the principal Based on what? What is the "loan payments" here? Are you saying the US budget will be 100% dedicat
293.
by roflyear 3y ago
I understand your perspective that with a sufficiently accurate model of the world, anything can be predicted. But I disagree, while framing all tasks as prediction problems is an interesting perspective (I haven't heard this explicitl
294.
by roflyear 3y ago
I did! I asked "define "understanding" and explain if LLMs (including yourself) exhibit "understanding"" Understanding: The ability to comprehend or grasp the meaning of something, the capacity to apprehend gen
295.
by roflyear 3y ago
Define understanding...
296.
by roflyear 3y ago
This is a logical fallacy itself, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're making the argument for infinite capabilities with LLMs. This is almost certainly not true.
297.
by roflyear 3y ago
You missed the point.
298.
by roflyear 3y ago
This is the issue with saying LLMs have understanding: it leads to misunderstanding how these systems work. Which, can be problematic! They don't work like people, so diving into that isn't productive.
299.
by roflyear 3y ago
How can they do this? What would be the mechanism for an LLM to know what is the right data and what isn't the right data?
300.
by roflyear 3y ago
The issue is jumping from "I don't know" to "it's alive" or "it has understanding" - some in this thread are making very strong claims regarding consciousness and LLMs, you can't make those claim

More ›