dash2

Compute would have to be very expensive not to be cheaper than a junior lawyer.

In Amodei’s Dwarkesh podcast he says that they are constantly estimating the increase in demand for the next leg up, then going out to raise money to build for it. So it’s not necessarily that they are raising money because they are unprofitable.

I think the feminine rhyme sounds unintentionally comic.

Checking out a parallel copy of our Go repository and telling the AI to rewrite the whole thing in Zig while I work on something else just so I can keep my job.

Was it just sales fluff? The answer was a lot more interesting.... Executives at their customers were saying absurd things about achieving 100x productivity, and this meant that if any executive at the vendor said that these gains were not plausible, it would undermine the credibility of the customer’s executive, be perceived as an attack (or heresy), and possibly result in an enterprise contract cancellation.

A lot of excellent anecdotes here.

The difference is that a tax can be per-item, and doesn't need as much regulatory and legal machinery.

Fair enough, but now I would "solve for the equilibrium" and assume that any large clothing company will have a friendly charity to reject its clothes for it.

I don't think the government knows if a given random IP connection has kids, or is you.

And the moment that happens, Taiwan will instantly vote to rejoin china.

Sounds inflammatory, and also extremely unlikely and has no evidence for it, and also the hyperlinked article, that is supposed to back it up, absolutely does not even try to do so. I don't think reading further is worthwhile.

You're assuming there is such a price! Charity shops throw out the majority of clothes they are given: some things just will never sell.[1]

[1] https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-y...

Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?

If you can't sell clothes to anyone, then it may be more socially efficient to destroy them than (a) keep them in a warehouse or (b) ship them overseas. Both (a) and (b) can have substantial environmental costs. I don't think it should be hard to come up with other plausible cases. You're assuming there's only one reason companies do this. I don't deny that that's a possible reason. I also don't see why taxing that behaviour would not reduce it.

A tax would also promote recycling, since that would avoid the tax?

How do we know that Chinese models would not do the same? What makes you so sure that China is less likely to abuse my data?

I don't understand the force of that argument. Where is the "so" coming from?

I don’t understand why they would ban this rather than charge for it. It seems very likely that destroying unsold clothes is sometimes the socially efficient thing to do, even after taking into account the environmental externalities.

I think the children alone are enough of an explanation…

I keep hearing this but lots of maths problems are practically important! We want to know the answer because it will be useful for applied science, or statistics, or engineering. It’s not all just about knowledge for its own sake.

Wouldn’t solutions be in the training data? The game is quite old.

It seems unusually tone deaf to call it a place for writers, and then let AI write the blurb.

I mean did the locals think of the two species as separate? If not then the discovery of a separate species is what’s important, not the knowledge of the physical population. Or was the population previously unknown to researchers?

Honour is not the relevant point. What's relevant is that breaking your TOS would give many large individual companies (a) a clear case to sue you and make a lot of money (b) a reason to avoid using you ever again, because who wants their data leaking into a potential competitor? Scraping the internet, as well as being much harder to adjudicate legally, also creates far fewer powerful companies with means, motive and opportunity to take you to court.

But a smallish firm could?

A game rather like this is described in Gwen Raverat’s Edwardian memoir, Period Piece. There you have to keep finding new words one letter longer, and they get ridiculous combos like TRUMPET, STRUMPET, (thou) TRUMPETST, STRUMPETST…

This is beyond silly. The guy who wrote Down and Out… and Road to Wigan Pier, and actually fought fascists in Spain, couldn’t imagine proles as anything but brainless subhumans? Orwell in 1948 didn’t predict computers? Have I been trolled?

By this logic we should also enjoy every time someone puts a motorway through woodland. Just look at the human achievement embodied in all that concrete!

Maybe handcuffs, hee hee

What would be different in developing countries?

You are mistaken and gp is correct: civil disobedience is usually thought of as done in public. "My conscience tells me it's fine to steal from this rich bastard because property is theft" is not civil disobedience.

We can look this up empirically: https://ourworldindata.org/trust. It shows US is a medium-high trust society; lower than parts of Europe, and lower than China (assuming people answered honestly there!) but higher than most of Africa, South America and Asia.

Actually: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/11/19/...