iterance

The authors really must improve the abstract before publication.

All things equal I would agree with you. However, all things are not equal.

SpaceX's target 2040 revenue of $4.3T. Let us assume that the US GDP grows at 3% p/a; in 2040 we may project a GDP of around $50T. Naturally, SpaceX would pushing 10% of the total US GDP.

Such a change is possible. It is not out of the question. Companies can and do reach that size, though obviously for mathematical reasons only a small number do. However, the claim that one will reach that size 14 years in advance beggars scrutiny. Simple credulity is not justified and it naturally follows that there will be a large number of people, even people with very bullish outlooks, who do not believe SpaceX will meet target. 30% growth p/a for 14 years would, historically, represent a fantastic rate of return and yet still it falls considerably short of target.

All the same, part of the promise to investors (whether one believes it or not) is that, even if SpaceX were to fall short of target, the long term revenue prospects are so explosive that one can't help but feel it's a good deal. (Is it? Time will tell.)

Just because it is theoretically the bread and butter of LLMs does not mean LLMs are capable of doing the job. It still needs to be proven, setting prior beliefs aside. Law is a life-critical system and deserves our highest level of scrutiny.

Lord Dunsany, 1915, wrote "WHAT WE HAVE COME TO":

When the advertiser saw the cathedral spires over the downs in the distance, he looked at them and wept.

"If only," he said, "this were an advertisement of Beefo, so nice, so nutritious, try it in your soup, ladies like it."

Ah. I once worked in a team with a hard cyclomatic complexity cap of 4 per function. Logic exceeding the cap needed to be broken into helper functions. Many, many functions were created to hold exactly one if statement each. Well, the code was relatively high quality for other reasons, but I can't say this policy contributed much.

Mathematicians used to send each other letters in the mail until very recently. Perhaps I do not understand what you mean?

The insight is the point of research. Proof isn't the desired product of research, it's simply an apparatus that exists for the purpose of verifying and demonstrating correctness of insight.

What's the cost per article?

What's the snallest possible program that accepts a chess board state and prints any legal move? True randomness may only have a couple hundred ELO, but then, that's pretty big for golf

My critique is not due to pessimism, it is due to afactuality. Breakthroughs in science are plenty in the modern era and there is no reason to expect them to slow or halt.

However, from your later comments, it sounds as though you feel the only operating definition of a "breakthrough" is a change inducing a rapid rise in labor extraction / conventional productivity. I could not disagree more strongly with this opinion, as I find this definition utterly defies intuition. It rejects many, if not most, changes in scientific understanding that do not directly induce a discontinuty in labor extraction. But admittedly if one restricts the definition of a breakthrough in this way, then, well, you're probably about right. (Though I don't see what Mars has to do with labor extraction.)

Specific fields may not advance for decades at a time, but we are hardly in a scientific drought. There have been dramatic advances in countless fields over the last 20 years alone and there is no good reason to expect such advances to abruptly cease. Frankly this is far too pessimistic.

Platforms lose momentum when these events strike, and momentum loss is the death knell for social platforms. Reddit's missteps have put it on a downward spiral. They may hang on, even for an impressively long time, but recovery from this point is very difficult and usually involves transforming or re-forming the vision.

It can be done. It takes the right leaders. Most are unfit for this particular challenge.

Many community-oriented programs have failed after acquisition because they came out too firm, too decided, and too purposeful, only to realize the community is still skeptical and turning against them six months in.

Honestly, for a program like Anki, starting out by saying "we need to figure out what good governance looks like, as well as what might be agreeable and possible for everyone involved" is a much stronger positioning than coming up with something that may or may not fly to try make a strong first impression. Communities do not follow the conventional rules of American business.

Technically speaking, because it's not a set, we should say it involves the collection of all sets that don't contain themselves. But then, who's asking...

If I hire an engineer and that engineer authorizes an "agent" to take an action, if that "agentic action" then causes an incident, guess whose door I'm knocking on?

Engineers are accountable for the actions they authorize. Simple as that. The agent can do nothing unless the engineer says it can. If the engineer doesn't feel they have control over what the agent can or cannot do, under no circumstances should it be authorized. To do so would be alarmingly negligent.

This extends to products. If I buy a product from a vendor and that product behaves in an unexpected and harmful manner, I expect that vendor to own it. I don't expect error-free work, yet nevertheless "our AI behaved unexpectedly" is not a deflection, nor is it satisfactory when presented as a root cause.

In coursework, references are often a way of demonstrating the reading one did on a topic before committing to a course of argumentation. They also contextualize what exactly the student's thinking is in dialogue with, since general familiarity with a topic can't be assumed in introductory coursework. Citation minimums are usually imposed as a means of encouraging a student to read more about a topic before synthesizing their thoughts, and as a means of demonstrating that work to a professor. While there may have been administrative reasons for the citation minimum, the concept behind them is not unfounded, though they are probably not the most effective way of achieving that goal.

While similar, the function is fundamentally different from citations appearing in research. However, even professionally, it is well beyond rare for a philosophical work, even for professional philosophers, to be written truly ex nihilo as you seem to be suggesting. Citation is an essential component of research dialogue and cannot be elided.

Hmm... reads a bit like an email a forum moderator might send a disobedient user. This seems strange, verging on unprofessional, for corporate communications.

I would hope that it is clear from context that I mean purchasing pre-prepared meals is expensive.

Restrictions on SNAP are tricky business. You can't ask someone on SNAP to spend time preparing food. Prepared meals are expensive, often not accessible, and sometimes difficult to prepare for people with certain disabilities. It might seem strange, but I have known people, very poor people, who rely on "foods in bar and drink form" out of necessity. I have known poor people for whom eating fruit is physically challenging.

SNAP changes like this may be better on a population health level, to be sure. On this I have no evidence. But each restriction placed on food for people living in destitution may mean some people go hungry. (And this excludes issues of caloric density.) I would like to see better data, but sadly, there is none.

One can say "they probably had data to support it" about virtually any decision. It is not really a defense from critique. It may have been deliberate, but it still feels wrong and bad.

The fact is, most of the systems people use in their day do day that behave the way described simply require no mastery whatsoever. If your product, service, or device is locked behind learning a new skill, any skill, that will inherently limit the possible size of the audience. Far more than most realize. We can rail against this reality, but it is unforgiving. The average person who is struggling to put food on the table only has so many hours in the week to spare to stick it to the man by learning a new operating system.

Cold take: honestly, just let users learn how to use your software. Put all your options in a consistent location in menus or whatever - it's fine. Yes, it might take them a little bit. No, they won't use every feature. Do make it as easy to learn as possible. Don't alienate the user with UI that changes under their feet.

Is "learning" now a synonym of "friction" in the product and design world? I gather this from many modern thinkpieces. If I am wrong, I would like to see an example of this kind of UI that actually feels both learnable and seamless. Clarity, predictability, learnability, reliability, interoperability, are all sacrificed on this altar.

The explosive popularity of AI code generation shows users crave more control and flexibility.

I don't see how this follows.

The chart with lines and circles is quite thought-leadershipful. I do not perceive meaning in it, however (lines are jagged/bad, circles are smooth/good?).

Thankfully, we do not have to judge a blog post by its ability to pass muster in technical interviews. :)

I will at least remark that adding a new error to an enum is not a breaking change if they are marked #[non_exhaustive]. The compiler then guarantees that all match statements on the enum contain a generic case.

However, I wouldn't recommend it. Breakage over errors is not necessarily a bad thing. If you need to change the API for your errors, and downstreams are required to have generic cases, they will be forced to silently accept new error types without at least checking what those new error types are for. This is disadvantageous in a number of significant cases.

Interesting. I'd love to learn more about the problem class.

The fight for this kind of legislature has been ongoing for many years as part of a broader program that seeks to shape the kinds of information that can be stored, consumed, and propagated on the Internet. Age verification is only one branch of the fight, but an important one to the many who support government control: it is an inroad that allows governments to say they have a stake in who sees what.

I'll admit this may be naive, but I don't see the problem based on your description. Split each step into its own private function, pass the context by reference / as a struct, unit test each function to ensure its behavior is correct. Write one public orchestrator function which calls each step in the appropriate sequence and test that, too. Pull logic into helper functions whenever necessary, that's fine.

I do not work in finance, but I've written some exceptionally complex business logic this way. With a single public orchestrator function you can just leave the private functions in place next to it. Readability and testability are enhanced by chunking out each step and making logic obvious. Obviously this is a little reductive, but what am I missing?

I think you maybe just don't like it?

Correctness is a poor way to distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated content. Even if it's right, which I doubt (can humans not make wrong statements?), it doesn't do anything to help someone who doesn't know much about what they're searching.

We have horoscopes and quantum computing. The existence of one is no shame on the other.