caturopath

Kids these days, am I right?

A prediction that will prove mostly immune to the change in "this year".

Two websites and an ad business.

Google isn't "the leader" in LLMs. Despite a huge funnel to get users in, for intentional use they are a distant second place for consumers, fourth place for LLM APIs, and reputationally treated as an underdog to two tiny companies.

I didn't say that innovation was the end-all of determining CEO performance, though producing new products and creating new markets is the angle that tech tends to go for. I mentioned Google's struggles to execute: they have an astoundingly hard time getting shit done compared to the other largest tech companies.

The counterfactual isn't Google having average performance. You're crediting the stock performance, revenue growth, and political influence (don't really agree this last one was a place Google shined over this period) to Sundar's leadership; I think it has a lot more to do with the company he was handed.

I'm not sure "move fast" describes the situation.

I don't understand why Sundar Pichai hasn't been replaced. Google seems like it's been floundering with respect to its ability to innovate and execute in the past decade. To the extent that this Google has been a good maintenance org for their cash cows, even that might not be a good plan if they dropped the ball with AI.

I'm mostly just waiting for Scott Aaronson to tell me any of these sorts of claims are true

I think Mozilla VPN is a Mozilla service?

It's pretty odd if you aren't allowed to use their VPN to watch or share porn

- send unsolicited communications (for example cold emailing an employer about a job) - Deceive or mislead (for example inviting your brother over for a surprise party under false pretenses) - Purchase legal controlled products (for example sending the pharmacy a refill for your Xanax) - Collect email addresses without permission (for example putting together a list of emails to contact public officials)

It seems like they might be "use[d]...to...[u]pload, download, transmit, display, or grant access to content that includes graphic depictions of sexuality"

I make my x's with a backwards c and a c, like Computer Mondern and lots of fonts https://i.ibb.co/8LPsJKsj/image.png - doesn't look much like a chi or a times sign

No one in the target audience is using × for scalar multiplication.

The subject matter is nominally the same, but I don't know how comparable I would guess the situations are. I 100% could see Meta making a very similar statement still today.

Filed under "Kids these days"

> ou better believe I've been thinking through even trivial greetings

Even after thinking through what to say, I used the wrong greeting in a shop half an hour ago and the person working there called me on it.

One of the things complicating the example is that the counting-letters task is actually a legitimately hard one for it, even if it's trivial for us: it's bad at letter stuff because of the way it represents text with tokens. I believe the problem exists, but the letter thing isn't necessarily a great example of something that it should recognize as trivial.

Yeah, I don't know if someone thought this was bad or something, but it seems like valid reasoning. We may need to give these models a sense of things that require more and less detailed reasoning and better knowledge of what they know internally, but the "research work" the model claims to be, it seems like it's doing a good job.

The poster also shared in a comment https://preview.redd.it/u8vs29hq5w2e1.png?width=2704&format=... which did get the intended laugh out of me, but even that seems fair enough. I'm currently traveling in a country where most people speak a language I don't know well. You better believe I've been thinking through even trivial greetings, considering the setting, formality, appropriate follow ups, etc.

I once actually got denied and had to buy a smaller box (for the same price). What the hell happens to families with multiple teens who all get sick at the same time?

> if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt

No it wouldn't. The scenario is not an actual one.

Passive income comes from someone benefiting from something you own and paying for it. It must still be benefiting for them to pay for it. If things had ground to a halt, no one would be getting anything, so they wouldn't pay for it.

It's like if I said that people running faster and faster would eventually result in them running faster than the speed of light. No it wouldn't: I'm just extrapolating a model out of its domain of applicability.

> Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive.

It also requires taking 'collecting passive income' as a moral act. If I took 'being a car mechanic' as a moral act, I could explain how awful it would be if everyone became car mechanics: there would be no farmers or nurses. But that's a poor analysis of the morality of occupation. This application is absurd and your application is not, but there is a decision on your part that wasn't among your premises.

Answer is confused. Everyone knows that Roman numeral imaginary numbers need to use `j` instead of `i` since `i` was already taken.

I feel for anyone living in the Bay Area without a very high-paying job, but I'm not sure I'm all that worried about the nation's marketing professionals' salaries, as problems go.

Clicked the link thinking this was about felines.

Waited for it to load and decided it was probably about concatenating files.

Pleased to find out it was about felines.

Sorry, I misread the ; as a ,.

The motivating example is a mess. 15_000_000 would have been a less distracting example, as this one has more-visible problems unrelated to the problem they're trying to solve. (Further, with default options, the opening example won't have the result shown: it will crash your program.)

Yeah, it's weird. Confused me too.

Sort of interesting that it's the 4 big American carmakers plus Honda.

He's in a better place now.

The 2-3-4 right triangle. What's the problem?

Sounds like they would have been able to sell more cars to Hertz.

Depending on when they negotiated the relevant stuff, Tesla might have thought they needed to contribute more to the deal to sell even the cars they ended up selling already.

Solar power production patterns don't make energy free. Normal pricing mechanisms apply. This can mean that something has a zero or negative price sometimes (this occurs in electricity markets today), but that is an unusual circumstance. Usually when something is available due to some sort of regularity in the world, people find uses and this drives the price up to some positive value.

The claim seemed to me to be that very little money was found compared to the 8 billion dollars. That doesn't seem true.