Some Nvidia employees are making graphics cards, that cost $1000, and use $300 of materials, and being paid $200. $500 is being extracted from the value chain at that point.
most merge improve a small subset of "feeling" benchmark (too small, too specific, or out of distribution) and tend to show degradation on actual benchmark, with especially punishing result on long chain benchmarks.
also only work on matching architectures (i.e. finetunes/loras of the same model)
Why do many Americans feel like they need SUVs? Or huge 3000+ sq. ft. houses? Or five-star luxury vacations to impoverished countries where they barely have to lift a finger?
My take: they don't; nobody does, but when you aren't successful and don't have a lot, and when "success" is marketed to you as "big SUV; fancy big ass house", you get trained into think you need much more than you actually do to be happy.
I don't really see the connection. The article is talking about the effects of these chemicals on infants breastfeeding and the effects on newborns.
While these are endocrine disrupting chemicals, people aren't transgender because their hormones are imbalanced. The reason transgender people do hormone replacement therapies is so that they can change their hormonal balance.
My guess is that there is an appearance of a greater number of gender diverse people today because culturally we've reached a point where we don't feel like we need to die with the secret of being transgender, rather than because there were proportionally that many fewer transgender people before.
LLMs have always been next token predictors and generators. What it will produce next will depend on its dataset. Feed it outdated answers from StackOverflow and you will get that. Feed it bootcamp material, and you will get that. Feed it a hodgepodge of disorganized corporate data, and you, will, get that. I don't know how to make it sound easier than this.
> you think it’s all elaborate fakes to trick you?
The fact content and provocativeness of the reporting has varied wildly from source to source, and in particular, between the British tabloid press, on one hand, and British institutional press (and international press), on the other hand.
White House has Sachs and Krishnan and the CCP is full of engineers. In contrast, the EU Commission:
- Commissioner for Digital and Frontier: Henna Virkkunen (JOURNALIST, experience PR) [1]
- Executive Vice-President of the European Commission for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy: Stéphane Séjourné (LAWYER, politics, but hey, his mom was a telephone switch operator!) [2]
I'm not sure a growth-obsessed Facebook could have done anything other than destroy social media, in the same way that a growth-obsessed Google couldn't have done anything other than destroy the web.
The only plausible alternate reality I can see would have been one where US anti-trust was vigorously enforced and kept Instagram and WhatsApp from being bought.
But that would have required expansions of US anti-trust law to allow for more proactive deployment.
Investing in the EU is like burning cash. Excessive regulation, high costs and taxes (especially of human labor), and investors get punished for creating and growing companies.
Even if you overcome all of this and become successful, you'll get chased by politicians for having too much money (which is not allowed in the EU).
And even if you don't, today, it will be tomorrow.
Easier to just take a long haul flight to your favorite US coast and do it there.
Anyone can trivially use the search bar to see that your "little actual substance" claim is comically false. One of us built an actual app for this thread.
I mean Apple only survived because very exploitive Microsoft kept them afloat so that Microsoft had someone to point to as competition when the government came around talking about monopolies. So yeah, Apple only exists because a very exploitive corporation propped them up as protection from consequences of that company's exploitation.
Say I dig a hole and then fill it back in and dig a hole and fill it back in and make a mud pie then throw it on the ground and then a stranger gives me $100. Is that work?
In a society flooded with knowledge, we cannot know everything, so we construct our arguments from fragmented information. In that regard, an example that supplements my argument is the case of the Trump administration and Columbia University in 2025. Harvard resisted, but I don't think every university did.
It's funny cause I just interviewed some people last month and I asked the same exact question. And the answer to your question is probably. The technology is so new that I expect people to have a variety of different opinions.
From the 3 people I interviewed, all of the answers are very similar which is along the lines of: Kinda, but we need to be careful of using it, privacy, hallucination, etc.
All very safe answers and doesn't say anything new to me. If they had been more specific about why and their experiences with it, I'd probably favor them more due to their experience with it. It'd also signal to me that they form their own opinion rather than simply following the crowd.
I don't think that's true. Supply-chain issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and response were probably a big factor - or so I've read, I'm not an expert. In any case, by 2024 (pre-DOGE), new-world screw-worm fly had breached the Panama boundary where we can feasibly keep it contained with a fixed on-going effort. I remember because some time during the pandemic I learned about the thing from someone linking a much older article in the Atlantic[1].
I would say it slightly differently: The average rate of growth comes from the average of the successful and unsuccessful innovators and non-innovators.
