account73466

Oh fuck, I am banned here from getting points. Time to avoid selling my own profile to whoever sniff on HN users.

by improving metrics over time

see, e.g., https://gluebenchmark.com/leaderboard/

"he was still in conflict with Emperor Napoleon, the French Republic’s king"

Above, AlexCoventry mentioned a paper. If you would like to find more, go to Google Scholar and find all papers which cite that paper. This would be just a part of the whole story since bigger datasets and models are not in open. The progress rate in this field is incredible.

Glad to find they used something from my research. Don't want to disclose more, was flagged too much.

If you think A and I think B, I am allowed to say B without proving it to you. You can say that my claim is unsupported but by insulting me in a parallel thread you learn nothing. Be open-minded and assume that what you see in open is not everything primarily due to different compute capabilities available to different actors.

I guess you are not from the field.

Edit: I was right, he is an engineer and not a researcher who is active in the field.

This time it is different.^{tm}

More seriously, we are almost about to

i) Generate a good book using a short intro.

ii) Generate a meaningful video using a few photos and a basic text scenario.

Which makes us closer to generate movies on demand (say in 2025) and then good luck to people claiming that the current progress in AI is a bubble.

Of course. Because my definition of rich/poor is w.r.t. people around and not some world's mean/median. Many people in first world nations cannot afford to have as much kids as even 40 years ago.

Yeah, some rich people don't get why poor people want to have kids and pollute this planet (according to them). Fortune's list suggests that the median number of kids is 2-3.

>> None of this is to say that weed can't be beneficial.

There might be a non-trivial impact of weed on climate change if weed consumers produce less kids which according to UNESCO is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint.

>> That assumes that the person doesn't change in the meantime.

In the meantime of what? I didn't suggest any action but merely suggested that sometimes money could clarify whether you do something because you love it or/and because you have to make money.

Yes, that is why I say "at least $1M".

>> you're not going to have the same output than if you were living on the breadline

That is what poor people are told to justify their struggle.

I am a scientist and thousands of scientists and engineers use my work.

Most great artists, musicians, writers, theorists, scientists, teachers, and inventors would not need to struggle as much if they would have some money to cover their basic needs. They would just avoid bullshit gigs and do they stuff with a greater focus. And if having $1M in their bank account would stop them doing what they love, then it is quite possible that they didn't love it in the first place.

Instead of being rude, you could try to formulate your point without attacking a straw man.

You review seems pretty accurate. Very rarely there is some lucrative incentive to join as an employee.

I feel like it is hard for people to say what they truly love before they have at least $1M in their bank account. If you have FU money, your view on working at a FAANG vs building a startup can change. You will find it easier to know what you truly LOVE.

It contributes as well.

On HN people often do not reply on replies to their comments and it does not mean that they do agree.

It seems like a rather nice thing which helps to avoid many ego-battles.

Thanks for the links! I am aware of the Buffet's bets but I did have a feeling that some VCs can be quite profitable especially the ones which invest in future government contractors and/or future surveillance facilitators.

I can imagine this to be true but do you have a source for that information?

I am wondering how far the essay would go if it were not from PG.

When your university is pretty small, it looks more like a faculty and it is somewhat more common for the latter to be professor-led.

I guess that it is phrased that way in order to signal other non-government organizations that they should have a look and probably ban it as well.

Not necessarily only US stocks but printed money have to go somewhere and they will be printed as the only pacific way to nullify previous debt.

7-8% is not an arbitrary number and the reason why 1959-1989 is different is because the % of money printed was different in that period. Currently, we are doubling money supply every 10 years, therefore one should ok to expect 2x in stocks because there is no other significant place for money to go to.

The most powerful agent is the one which manages to confiscate our only real asset - our time.

Trump is pretty good at it with all the controversies he is generating.

AI-assisted systems will be targeted at maximizing this interaction metric. You are slowly cooked by your favorite entertainer of the day to be then fed with an opinion which you take as your own. It is not novel at all.

The main author has many papers in Physical Review but here it is just arXiv, which journal you are talking about?

>> why should the reviewers be obligated to give you the benefit of the doubt?

That is a technical paper with 5 pages of text. Their PI has a few hundred papers published so he probably just does not care. The reviewers usually don't care as well as long as the core contribution is legit.