It is just sad that commentary like this even exists.
I sincerely am curious of the education that produces sentences like this. On one hand it is articulate and educated, on the other hand its amazing that one can think China is doing this out of charity and not wiping out its competitors one after the other.
I fear you badly misunderstood my comment if you think I think China is doing anything at all out of charity.
China wants to supplant the US as the world hegemony and we'll all be worse off for it. The Chinese protectionism I described is China exercising an avenue they think will help them approach that goal. It certainly is not charity.
Zuckerburg has already realized that local social networks will be utterly replaced by AI chatbots, which are superior in like 99% of cases.
It doesn't matter if others find "Facebook" icky, because the people who would find it icky, don't use facebook anyways. The critical factor is getting a new group of users onboard, to form a sustainable core of users.
I can see it. Lots of lonely people use social media as a means of experiencing connection, and being gaslit by a pornbot is not strictly worse than being gaslit by one of the pretty ladies trying to get you to invest your life savings on bitcoin…
You can pay for long term support from private companies.
And your scientific context is a distinct minority for python now. Most new development for python is for data/AI. Considering LLMs get updated every quarter, and depreciated every year, there is no appetite for code that doesn't get updated for 5 years.
Honestly it's very weird to have data/AI be outside of the scientific context! They both used to be a subset of scientific Python.
The code will be updated over five years, but there's no need to be on continual version churn on the underlying language. And frankly I'm surprised that it's tolerated so widely in the community. Trying to run a Node project from 5 years ago is often an exercise in futility, and it will be a big shame when/if that happens to Python.
Because python dominates AI, and python is dominating because of AI. And prompting really, really benefits from f-strings and templated strings. LLMs as a whole means the rise of unstructured data, and flexible string manipulation is really important for handling that.
Its a gigantic bet on user stickiness in AI, and the monetizable value of AI users who don't pay for subscriptions. Aka low-end consumers vs high-end consumers.
Nvidia and AMD were low-end vs high-end. In the end Nvidia won a total victory by ditching low margin distractions like building GPUs for consoles, and focused solely on higher end PC GPUs that could dually act as accessible research chips.
No its not, its a bet on AI replacing workers. Almost all the value isn't going to be from users paying $20 or even $200 per month, but companies paying millions to billions of dollars for the api.
Do you worship the posting guidelines or something? Are you that offended by someone adding information to a post? The forum is a public one, not a 1-1 conversation.
The poster added valuable information, that is interesting and not self-evidently obvious to the average person who doesn't think much about restaurants, that makes the forum more useful to others?
AI just represents a new class of business, that doesn't need consumers or revenue or business plans.
Traditionally you want to build a moat with name recognition, established customer base etc. OpenAI has absorbed huge losses to serve consumers at below inference cost.
But its not clear if that has advantaged OpenAI or not. Turns out most AI customers are only loyal to the most intelligent model. So if a competitor releases a better model, the shift away can be extremely rapid.
So SSI probably is a bet on that, to just develop the model in private, and not waste time and energy on deployment, name recognition, go to market, enterprise sales etc. Have a decisive model advantage, and customers will crash your door trying to get it.
> More over, intelligence has a superexponential return, 90IQ->100IQ < 100IQ->110IQ in terms of returns
That's the second time I've seen the claim that linear increases in intelligence have "superexponential" results, first time was Altman's blog.
But I've not seen any justification for this.
(As you specifically say IQ, note that an IQ is defined as a mapping of standard deviations rather than a mapping of absolute skill, the normal mapping is 15 points being 1σ).
Most of social sciences today is 'degenerate' by your definition, at least a plurality of those researchers openly admit that following the evidence is not the highest virtue, but arriving at the most socially correct result is.
That's not what Lakatos meant by degenerate. It's a technical definition, and his response to Popper's claim that falsification can be used to differentiate science from pseudoscience. I think if you seriously apply Lakatos's reasoning then at the very least many types of quantitative social science are progressive research programmes in a way that race science is not. And if you try naive falsification instead, you end up with weird results like mathematical physics isn't science but quantitative sociology is.
Oh, and "socially correct" is a thought terminating cliche. You clearly meant "politically correct" but that has such a negative valance that you need to change one of the words to not sound conspiratorial.
(declaimer: I am from Hong Kong, and have worked on some import tax/declaration system)
Import tax and tariff relies on clear and accurate import declaration.
For DHL/FexEx imported package, you can fine them when the declaration isn't right.
For USPS imported package, you can't fine USPS -- they didn't know what's in package when it arrive. You can't fine Hong Kong Post or China Post, because they are not US entities. Rejecting parcel in bulk is one of the reasonable option if they can't get the shipper fill in the correct declaration form.
I sincerely am curious of the education that produces sentences like this. On one hand it is articulate and educated, on the other hand its amazing that one can think China is doing this out of charity and not wiping out its competitors one after the other.