hawkice

And taking the labor and time of the employees is a value extracted. While there is some modest surplus I hope people get from their job (e.g. they'd do the same job for less money), that surplus of excess wages over what people would accept will be lower than consumer surplus for almost any standard business.

I think this draws too strong a line between the matrix-math core and the harness that uses it. Those harnesses undoubtedly were built with purpose and the systems fail to achieve that goal. Common usage says the the DMV can make mistakes, like any systems, despite the DMV itself not being a person (and it is common to allege large organizations make mistakes even when no specific individual is making an identifiable mistake). This isn't person-language it's systems/purpose-language.

The vast majority of the value provided vs extracted, for any business, is related to consumer surplus and gross margins, as opposed to payroll.

There exist both type I and type II errors, yes. But it's not absurdity, the South Korean Thyroid Cancer "epidemic" is one of the classic examples of the dangers of using traditional treatments on the lower-severity cases more advanced scanning uncovers. It was a public health disaster with lifelong consequences for those impacted, and was, legitimately, people getting cancer treatment for small cancers so harmless that they would have died of something else before becoming symptomatic.

Exposing asymptomatic potential issues leads to medical care that often does not meet out standards for medical tradeoffs. Chemo is nasty, even the most minor surgery has risks. We endure the risks because we are addressing either major health issues or other dire uncertainties. Using our heavy duty treatments for issues without any symptoms at all would, normally, cause the patient suffering in excess of what would be justified. Chemo is a life saver when it's saving lives -- if the alternative is no symptoms, it just ruins your life for a profoundly uncertain upside.

This couldn't possibly matter, but 5 xor 3 is 6.

The aggressors not being the targets of the firebombing is central to the concerns here. They weren't military targets (largely).

They have developed an LLM, so they are an AI lab, but the quality of that model suggests they're not a frontier anything.

Confirming that saving genuinely works. Interesting stuff. Wonder if we can get trades working too.

Bananas are like transport and refrigerator maxing! It can't possibly be the literal optimum of that metric.

The carbon in food is not captured or emitted in any coherent sense here. The crops are grown (capturing the carbon in the first place) for the purpose of feeding people -- in the same way that modern American forestry for paper is functionally carbon neutral (ignoring transport and processing) because the trees are in equilibrium. The counterfactual of not eating the food results in fewer crops and basically the same atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Edit: if you only mean food transportation carbon, it seems impossible bananas are literally optimal per calorie.

I feel like this pastiche burned through whatever comedy potential it had before mid-2017.

Isn't this a Goomba fallacy? The people trying to conserve energy and the people who are using vastly more energy than before are different individuals, no singular person is contradicting their values.

As a software engineer who has monitored LLM viability as a coding assistant, the idea that 90% of Anthropic's lifetime revenue up to the end of Q1, was in Q1 itself, seems completely realistic to me.

And if every model is profitable but they're getting income on a model that costs X while training the one that costs 10X, everything else makes sense too, and this is indeed their highly reasonable claim.

Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.

I think you can report someone apologized, but cannot attest to their internal mental state enough to impartially report that they're sorry.

Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.

Yes, next Friday is not the next Friday, those two phrases are very different despite that being weird.

Not endorsing this, just reporting from usage.

Perhaps this is regional? I would identify this Friday as the 15th, and next Friday as the 22nd. Next Friday always means the Friday after the next one, which I notice is insane as a matter of logic, but is the local usage I am familiar with.

Obviously LLMs would identify as binary.

(But also, low effort meanness is bad, HN strives for better in both dimensions)

Incorrect, and mean-spirited. Come on.

I think some comments are missing the upside of it being precisely Rust, without any new semantics. If you want lisp that compiles to machine code, Common Lisp can get reasonably efficient. The purpose of bringing Rust into it is to surface Rust-specific semantics -- which many people quite like!

Cud, I think, is the thing that gets rechewed.

This article is very invested in constant mockery. As someone who just wanted to understand better, it made it a tedious read.

Unions aren't acting in the interest of the people generically, often not even the members of the union. Otherwise they wouldn't go to court to force people who don't even want to be in the union to pay dues, even when the dues go to political campaigns unrelated to the purpose of the union, as in Janus v. AFSCME (where the support for political causes by the union meant it violated public sector workers freedom of speech if they are compelling fees from non-members, a relatively narrow ruling not impacting most unions).

It's probably also worth clarifying that workload necessarily excludes anyone who observes the Sabbath.

But image generation doesn't matter. It's a fun toy but it's not part of any professional workflow they care about, doesn't impact long term strategic goals, etc. It's literally just PR mistake they're covering for.

Praise reveals priorities. They don't care about getting things right the first time. They don't care about important projects. That's the inference.

I think compact verification aware languages will be of particular interest to anyone wanting to make machine learning models write code at scale. Verification, and test generation, seem critical to the process of getting feedback from the program itself and improving the automatic code generation process. Not quite as powerful as self-play was for two player game playing, but it's got to be close.

I mean, at least LLMs would have different text in different messages.

Not sure "cost of living" exists in NK the same way it does in the rest of the world.