We don't understand the brain. We fully understand what LLM are doing, humans built them. The idea we don't understand what LLMs are doing is magical. Magical is good for clicks and fundraising.
2,217 karma · joined January 18, 2013
I would think this could be a perk that companies could use to get an advantage in hiring. Although, maybe those who it appeals to on the whole may be lower performers?
Would love to see some real data on this.
The latter displays no competency in hacking or cybersecurity, only the attempt to harm another.
My concern in their access to secure government systems is not their hacking competency (which has not been demonstrated), but their sociopathy which has.
Neural nets are a foundational technology there should be a ecosystem of apps based on it. People pay 1500$ for an iphone because it has apps, not to call and text people. I think its coming and Apple can't just NOT do AI, so I get it, but it will take a little time.
` window.$ = document.querySelector.bind(document) window.$$ = document.querySelectorAll.bind(document) `
Maybe controversial but I really believe this lowers overall standards. You just can't find enough faculty to meet the high standards.
Look what happened when tech blew up - they hired like crazy. I'd argue the overall level of programming skill went down.
But also a good SAT for (those not naturally brilliant = most of us) also a positive indication of the student work ethic (to study for the test).
The problem I believe with the disadvantged students argument, which I believe to be a very real problem - is that lowering the standards wrt the test scores - is just a bad solution to a real problem.
Poor students do sit at a disadvantage - but the fix is much more difficult and complicated, and involves that child's entire life experience until they become 17 or 18 y/old. No one has a handle on how to fix it.
I get the feeling smart + hard work will come back into fashion when it comes to academic opportunities.
Binary arithmetic doesn't make dollars for your bosses, but its fun. That doesn't make it less significant.
When you have a kid. Drop EVERYTHING in your life, take off (completely) from work and spend your days with them. For at least a month or two. Make breakfast, watch little kid shows, all that.
Yeah money, but you have decades to earn money. Those couple months you won't get back.
College is just like private K-12 - there is no set price, it's indexed to your income. They have to set a high list price so the wealthy can pay that and they aid those w less income. Don't forget about car and health insurance!
Do every single aid and scholarship app you can find. Use the appeals process especially if you have extenuating circumstances. Read the rules carefully about which assets/income is relevant.
If you're divorced (I am), read the rules carefully about income and asset reporting in those circumstances.
It's not that you're paying for the credential, you're paying for the experience, education, and credential. Just the credential is the expensive part of it.
Example, I've been a DJ (just for fun) for 30 years. Just saw an ad for DJ school. Even if they wanted to be a professional DJ (ok, if that's your dream), I'd NEVER pay for my kid to do it. There's a legit cost in educating anyone. But the credential is worthless. A university degree has some value. Of course, you can learn ANYTHING online for free. Anything. The credential is the expensive part of it. So make sure it's a credential with value.
You may have to say NO to your kid(s). This is VERY tough. But weigh your options carefully as spending your entire retirement fund on college (mostly for the credential) is a dubious proposition.
"But it's not a fully functioning 2023 Twitter!!!" I think some people miss the point. This is not about hey we built a Twitter clone. This is about a POC for a novel app architecture.
We need to be constantly examining and re-examining our thoughts about the best way to deal with distributed systems, scale, developer workflow. Even inventing new ones.
customElements.define('like-button', class LikeButton extends HTMLElement {
connectedCallback() {
this.innerHTML = '<button></button>'
this.addEventListener('click', this.onClick, true)
}
onClick() {
this.innerText = 'You liked this'
}
})We’re not (in my option) going back to zero interest rates, so interest will make balanced budgets impossible to achieve.
Also don’t see much appetite to cut defense as we’re aligning to have China and Russia as enemies.
Rather I think we’ll resort to more of the Fed buying up the debt who can remit the interest payments back to the treasury.
I could see a scenario where they even just retire/redeem treasuries so the debt just goes away. The downside it’s inflationary but also does this erode confidence in the system where things are (even more so) centrally controlled.
It's important to understand - on the whole - he average probability of guessing the direction of a trade is 50/50. Any obvious (and virtually all non-obvious) edges, arbitrage for instance, are removed by the market participants. That's what a market IS.
In that respect, 'random walk' is correct. However, that does not mean all participants cannot expect profitability over the short or long term. Which are also themselves, very different things.
For retail traders, transaction cost (commissions + bid/ask spread) make it a negative expectancy.
In fact, bid/ask spreads and commissions ARE PRICED right at a level to remove any positive expectancy, but leave the APPEARANCE of a possible positive one.
Getting that up just a couple percentage points to a positive expectancy is difficult in the short term, and VERY difficult over the long term. Not impossible. That's why about 70-80% of active retail traders are losing overall at any given time.
For firms, order flow and much lower transaction costs make for a positive expectancy. The value of order flow alone is responsible for the zero-commission trading industry.
Skill isn't the issue. The trader with skill level at lose a little or break even trading - from his bedroom - would very possibly be winning on the big banks trading desk. Even if executing the SAME trades they were at retail. More so, the more frequent the trading activity.
So if big institutions have a built in edge why do they sometimes fail? Easy, they still sometimes make stupid bets (ie.. Silicon Valley Bank's bond bet which killed it).
Making it illegal does not eliminate its use. It reduces its use. 63% of Americans drink. 1.7% use coke (have in the prev 12 months).
It follows that knowing of your own eventual annihilation must be terrifying. Sure you can take refuge in false delusions or just ignore it. But if you're not afraid of death, are you really living? Are you really respecting life properly when you're not terrified to lose it?
If there are mental health issues - find help - not everyone even professionals can necessarily help - you may have to try different people, but it can get better.
Everyone has a mix of: Debts, money they've loaned to others, amount of assets owned, and amount of dollars owned and wages (recurring income in dollars).
So, inflation is most harmful to wage earners with few assets - and most helpful to non-wage earners with many assets.
Increasing wealth disparity between workers (most people) and those who own the most assets. Those who own large amounts of assets largely don't own dollars - they own real estate, securities, etc..
The bank issue is a strawman - simply a matter of SVB (and others) making bad interest rate bets and losing.
If it can’t then the quality of AI is exaggerated.
They bet billions on zero interest rate policy and didn't hedge that bet.
Glut or no glut, would have failed just like LTCM or any other huge bets that failed to consider tail risk.
Although this problem was caused by bank malfeasance and yes this does imply de facto unlimited insurance, unlimited depositor insurance is kinda the whole point and is not itself a bad thing.
Yes, moral hazard is a huge consideration, but I don’t see depositor protection as encouraging future failures of this type, by encouraging bad risk taking by mgmt.
Rather, if banks bet their customers money unhedged on endless zero rate policy, as SVB did, there should be regulations that prevent it. Trace back to lobbying to exclude SVB from dodd frank regulations also at the heart of the crisis.
And most Americans have no conception of being able to have 250k in a checking account.
The vengeance attitude can be taken too far however but as depositors are ultimately made 80-100% whole seems a reasonable outcome.
Bottom line uninsured means uninsured. Read your contracts. Although shouldn’t be angry if they can be made whole.
Obvs a prediction, but while the limit is 250k - the FDIC will act to protect depositors with higher amounts - probably a private aquisition of some kind.
May be worth upping the (advertised) 250k insurance limit, as the de facto amount is already higher.
Rates will eventually top out - they just had made a very bad bet at 1.5%/10 yr.