zwaps

Sure, but there's no sota alternative from Google. That's it, and its beaten by GLM 5.2 on every measure except somewhat speed.

I find that quite staggering. GLM is open weights

according to AA it's not better than GLM 5.2 and that's surprising to me

Here's the issue:

GLM 5.2 is better, also cheaper, and almost as fast.

So essentially, a big L for Google. Combine this with them not being able to produce a frontier model this generation... hmm implications

More likely they don't manage to advance benchmarks on the SOTA level anymore. In other words: They can't beat 5.6 nor Fable

Coining the term: Slopfold

When you Robot folds your clothes but it's kinda wrinkly and sloppy but you accept it anyway because it's easier than precisely folded and pressed clothes.

You call your own blog post seminal and quote yourself in the repo.

Are you … alright?

Obviously the theory is decades old. I think nowadays a Game Theorist would not go and claim that the fixed-point convergence is an actual market process with consumers and monopolists trying to outsmart each other in some kind of bizarro bazar game.

An equilibrium for a given game is - depending on the equilibrium concept (bummer, even more conditions) - is a stable outcome of some sort with usually no claims as to how it would actually be reached.

By that, you can already see that this is not really an actual theory of an empiric situation, but rather a mathematical model of a certain solution structure.

If you were to write this paper today as an economist and your goal was to claim that is actually, really holds in reality, then you'd not only have to produce the theory but you'd also have to build some sort of empirical model that you can estimate with somewhat plausible identification conditions and structure, or be able to show it in a (pseudo-)experiment setup that is believable enough. Suffice to say that there are very few such claims made on reality in modern microeconomics (that is to say, Game Theory by and large)

As it turns out, these sort of mathematical models have quite a bit of value in a normative setup, say if you go and design a market or an auction. Less so as a theory to explain all of reality.

I think in Coase's time, it was easier to write a 6 page paper from your bathtub and claim something about the world. Wasn't there an xkcd comic like this?

Not really. Game Theory (in this iteration at least) is about identifying equilibria, not about the process of reaching them. This is one of several "deviations" of Game Theory from "reality". The fact that equilibria are fixed-points and can be explained in some sort of bargaining process doesn't really mean that's how we should actually imagine them. If we do so, we both overstate the theory (claiming some sort of actual behavioral process) and understate it being a (possibly quite general) fixed point to many possible market and non-market processes.

If you want to make Game Theory collide with reality, the actual convergence to an equilibrium is only one of many venues where there is a large divide. Other assumptions of these models - from rational behavior to uniform prior assumptions - are equally problematic.

Game Theory models are nevertheless very helpful because they require you to actually lay out your assumptions or - when you observe something else - reason about "what else is going on" in any of these areas. As it turns out (as another person has said), it is also immensely helpful when designing mechanism (i.e. games) like a Steam store or an ad auction, which is why tech companies hire quite a few Game Theorists.

Somewhat that is it.

The issue if, of course, that marginal revolution overstates the contribution of a single empirical study here.

Of course everyone is aware that the original model doesn't hold in reality. The contribution of showing this in the ebook market is... not zero, but certainly not the implied "We killed the theory!!!!"

Instead, there are decades of papers poking holes in the Coase model and producing ideas as to why the conjecture doesn't hold. In my mind, these are the more interesting contributions. The authors mention two, but I think far more tangible are time preferences, time horizon limits, pertubations, non-uniform prior assumptions and bounded rationality.

Some of the papers are linked. These papers, decades old, helpfully even show cases where the result does not hold.

Yes, the logic applies to all sorts of bargaining situations - that's what later papers mentioned in the article is about

Is this not just embedding anisotropicicity?

Big topic early 2020s

Has anyone compared recently doing something like ModernBERT plus classifier vs. full or lora FT of a small LM like qwen?

Oh no that’s terrible. They even say the data is used by the external company to train and use however.

Shit now i have to cancel my account

Does not apply to oss models

It will not. We are unable.

In UK and Spain, computer engineers earn the median income?

“Sound waves are captured from electro-mechanical vibration in the axles“

Finally! Electronic sound is fine if it is the actual sound of the car instead of some fake recording of a v8

The author is so close. “decades of debian and it never got any traction. Why?“

Yeah! What a mystery. What could make people install omarchy or pop os over debian, arch or gentoo?

What could possibly be the reason

Omarchy!! shipping a window manager with defaults and or a terminal with a config - what an unspeakable sin.

Linux should be hard and shitty and it should break all the time! What is this newfound obsession with distros that just works and have some great setups and defaults.

Where do we end up if you can just close your laptop lid or copy paste with the same key or or or if even… gasp… the theme is automatically applied across all apps?

DHH? More like literal devil.

No sir! Let me write a blogpost post haste!

Well the business model of Malta is being a tax evasion haven and access port for oligarchs.

That’s quite a difference to most other European countries, although not all.

The way this argues against its own premise is really ChatGPT like. This happens when you ask it writing about something that isn’t actually true. Which again is funny because as an AI consulting company you should have expertise to know what you want to weite about

But good news, this company also has a free ebook. I am sure it is fantastic.

This reads like an AI writing to a point an author wants to make without there being evidence.

It is completely incoherent. Apparently we just need markdown and git, but also a knowledge graph and pgvector which accounts for most of the performance.

We don’t need semantic search, because we use… hybrid search (semantic search plus bm25)???

Really bad look for an AI consulting company this.

The second feature shown in this global launch is ... widgets. Like, Windows Vista widgets. And then, I could also open phone apps but not on my phone but on my computer (because I'd want to do that) and then the remaining feature is file sync.

I am just lost. I wanna watch a documentary on how this kind of thing gets thought out and made and approved by a lot of people and then comes to being annouced as an actual hardware product.

Maybe as a comment, you really put weight on intent classification. I am not sure why. For it to work, you are gonna need my expert domain input. And given that, I feel like the classification bit is basically solved. I wonder a bit why this is the feature you seem to put front and center (e.g. screenshots)

how so? genuine question

For instance, I have intent classifiers running on my traces and most tools offer some sort of analysis agents or API so it's claude sdk and go.

Maybe let's take Langsmith. Now I know my gripes with that product. How do you see it? What do you add, specifically?

If only the US would follow its laws or constitution

I like the idea, just that the examples are reproduced from the training data set.

How does it handle unknown queries?

Yes and no. In principle you are right.

In practice, Claude is trained on its harness and the subscription is priced to best competitors such as Cursor.

This is also why Cursor tries to finetune oss models. Otherwise its performance in the CC flavor of AI coding will just be that bit worse