gzer0

This point caught my attention, as my experience has been quite different, though in completely different industries. How does one go about finding genuinely good consultants, in any industry?

  > "Use Consultants

  Consultants are literally cheat codes. Need to make the world's largest slice of cake? Start off by calling the person who made the previous world's largest slice of cake lol. He's already done countless tests and can save you weeks worth of work. I really want to drill this point home because I'm a massive believer in consultants. Because I've spent almost a decade of my life hyper obsessing over YouTube, I can show a brand new creator how to go from 100 subscribers to 10,000 in a month. On their own it would take them years to do it. Consults are a gift from god, please take advantage of them. In every single freakin task assigned to you, always always always ask yourself first if you can find a consultant to help you. This is so important that I am demanding you repeat this three times in your head "I will always check for consultants when I'm assigned a task""

Whoever solved it left a rather intriguing, albeit slightly mocking, message:

  TX input:
  Code:
  1FuckUmT5yBAvozf6gT8GRQVbJ7iBDUnrH

  TX outputs:
  Code:
  1Jvv4yWkE9MhbuwGU66666666669sugEF 0.00000001
  1YouAreSoDumbLoL666666666667K5aR4 0.00000002
  1WhatWereUThinking6666666662wkqq1 0.00000003
  1YouDeserveNothing6666666665sbbBC 0.00000004
  1YouEpicFaiLure66666666666688GSDA 0.00000005
  1BitchAssLoser66666666666669dBUVg 0.00000006
  1AndEveryoneELse666666666669Vnc8C 0.00000007
  1ThisisALosingGame6666666667HAZdf 0.00000008
  1JustGetAReaLJob666666666665vGKVD 0.00000009
  1YoureWastingTimeAndMoney664CVExC 0.00000010
  1AndCausingCLimateChange6666HK8Qc 0.00000011
  13zb1hQbWVsc2S7ZTZnP2G4undNNpdh5so 0.00000012
  1Jvv4yWkE9MhbuwGUoqFYzDjRVQHaLWuJd 0.00000013
  1FK5PjPNARQmg94n2cNHTo9417kWfXUDBQ 0.00002125

I found some rather troubling aspects within the ruling itself:

1. Retroactive application of arm's length principle

The Court's reliance on the arm's length principle, despite acknowledging it's not required by EU law, is problematic. As stated in paragraph 124:

  > "Article 107(1) TFEU gives the Commission the right to check whether the level of profit allocated to such branches... corresponds to the level of profit that would have been obtained if that activity had been carried on under market conditions."

This retroactive application of a principle not explicitly required by law at the time of the tax rulings is unfair and creates legal uncertainty for businesses.

2. Burden of proof

The Court's criticism of the General Court's approach to evidence, as noted in paragraph 245, lowers the burden of proof for the Commission in State aid cases:

  > "As the Commission stated in recital 441 of the decision at issue, its approach is based on an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, which has been part of Ireland's legal order since its accession in 1973, and not on a failure to have regard to the framework defined at OECD level."

This shift unfairly advantages the Commission in future cases and will lead to increased challenges to legitimate tax arrangements.

But, overall, yes, I get the concerns about legal certainty and applying rules retroactively. They're valid points. But when I weigh everything, I still think this ruling does more good than harm. It's a big step towards fairer taxes and more transparency in how big companies operate.

Yes, it might ruffle some feathers in the short term. But in the long run, it's setting us up for a tax system where everyone plays by the same rules – whether you're a small local business or a tech giant.

The main issue with publishing research is the cost. Some time ago, I worked in a research lab studying Lupus. Our results were negative, and my initial inclination was not to publish them. However, my Principal Investigator (PI) emphasized that all results, whether positive or negative, should be published. Fortunately, we had the funds to do so. At that time, publishing in a reputable journal cost $2,300.

Not everyone is so fortunate. This lesson has stuck with me, as I have seen or heard from different labs where, unfortunately, they couldn't afford to publish their findings.

The current state of the markets and private equity is deeply troubling. Gone are the days when companies like Microsoft went public at reasonable valuations, allowing everyday investors to participate in their massive growth. Now, companies like Uber and Airbnb debut on the stock market at sky-high valuations, leaving little room for the average investor to profit.

Worse still, the concentration of wealth has enabled large private equity firms to gobble up what were once thriving small businesses across various industries - from veterinary clinics to engineering firms. This trend stifles entrepreneurship and limits opportunities for employees to rise through the ranks and become owners themselves.

America has lost half its public companies since the 1990s. The count of publicly listed companies traded on US exchanges has fallen substantially from its peak in 1996. Back then, the number exceeded 8,000 companies. Today that count has dropped by more than 50% to just 3700 [1].

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/investing/premarket-stocks-tr...

Based on the sophistication we've seen, they probably used Mullvad for their VPN. In that case, a subpoena wouldn't turn up anything.

Did anthropic just kill every small model?

If I'm reading this right, Haiku benchmarks almost as good as GPT4, but its priced at $0.25/m tokens

It absolutely blows 3.5 + OSS out of the water

For reference gpt4 turbo is 10m/1m tokens, so haiku is 40X cheaper.

Shamelessly greedy auto insurers like Progressive and Travelers are raking in record profits and enjoying sky-high stock prices, with Travelers even surpassing a $100 billion market cap, yet they still have the audacity to gouge policyholders with double-digit rate hikes up to 45%. If payouts truly exceeded premiums during the pandemic as these corporate behemoths claimed, how can they now be pocketing their fattest profits ever after the extreme hikes? The simultaneous jackpot profits and outrageous increases in what people pay expose the insurers' justifications as bald-faced lies. The industry giants are clearly bamboozling regulators and customers simply to boost their already-soaring income and profits at regular folks' expense. Their profiteering tactic: fabricated reasons to hike rates exorbitantly no matter what the economic reality [1].

This needs to stop. We need change.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/finance/insurance-companies-profits-stoc...

Submit a complaint via the CFPB. They most certainly will then respond.

I had a frustrating experience trying to obtain my consumer report from Early Warning Services, a less-known alternative to Chex Systems. Their process for requesting a report was unnecessarily complex and seemed designed to discourage users.

Initially, I had to navigate to a hidden webpage, which then directed me to a PDF form. This step alone was convoluted. After filling out the form, I discovered a line within the PDF that provided a link to a consumer portal, which looked like it hadn't been updated since the early 2000s.

The next step required me to create an account on this outdated portal, upload the completed PDF, and wait for a response.

However, my troubles didn't end there. For reasons unknown to me, my account was suddenly deleted. When I reached out to their IT support for help, they were clueless about the reason behind this issue.

Fed up with the lack of support and transparency, I decided to file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). To my surprise, this action prompted a swift response from Early Warning Services. Within just two days of filing the complaint, they sent me my consumer report.

> You're just reading a mildly ambiguous sentence in poor faith. Not only is the amphetamine comment clearly applying to Adderall—which is true—methylphenidate also delivers an uptick in dopamine, which is why it's effective at all. The difference between the two drugs—which is meaningful in many contexts—is not substantial in this context.

I disagree. The OP is correct in calling out the bogus languge used in the article.

Saying the difference between Adderall (an amphetamine) and Ritalin (methylphenidate) doesn't matter because they both just boost dopamine is like saying it doesn't matter whether you turn up the volume on your speaker by using a remote or by walking over and pressing a button. Yes, both methods make the music louder, but how they do it is different.

Adderall pushes more dopamine out, while Ritalin makes sure the dopamine that's already there sticks around longer. This matters because, depending on someone's unique brain chemistry and health, one method might be better for them than the other. It's not just about the end result (more dopamine); it's about how you get there and what side effects might come along for the ride. Just like some people prefer the remote for convenience, doctors and patients might prefer one medication over the other based on how well it works for them and how it makes them feel.

  def get_corrected_stats(ids):
    corrected_counts = {}
    i = 0

    while i < len(ids) - 1:
        current_pair = (ids[i], ids[i+1])
        # If the pair is new or if the current element is not a repeat of the previous one (or it's the first element)
        if current_pair not in corrected_counts:
            corrected_counts[current_pair] = 1
        else:
            if i == 0 or ids[i] != ids[i-1]:
                corrected_counts[current_pair] += 1

        # If the current and next element are the same, skip to the next unique element
        if i < len(ids) - 2 and ids[i] == ids[i+1]:
            while i < len(ids) - 1 and ids[i] == ids[i+1]:
                i += 1
        else:
            i += 1
  

I have a basic grasp of this topic. Can you explain why the proposed solution is (or isn’t) effective in this scenario?

Truly stunning. Waiting on the research paper, says will be published (soon). Can't wait to read on the technical details.

Data from analytics.usa.gov [1] reveals that Chrome leads browser usage at 48%, closely followed by Safari at 35.7%, highlighting the competitive proximity of Safari to Chrome. Definitely much higher share than I thought.

[1] https://analytics.usa.gov/

Thanks for looking out; those were not the actual names I used! I added those in for comedic effect ;)

That is a possibility. Another scenario is one in which you sign up to a service like Optery and submit a non-existent individual with fabricated information for PII removal; after about a month or so, this fabricated individual started showing up as a possible person that lived at my address when I was trying to get a quote from Progressive.

So, seems like somewhere in the midst of this process, one of the 240 brokers that Optery sends your information to get it removed, someone aggregated it, sold it to Progressive and in the underground realm of data brokers and buying and selling data, someone unfortunately (or fortunately?) is now targeting 'Paige Notfound' and 'Meg A. Byte'.

I got the last laugh! :)

Sorry to say this, but even if Amazon paid ME $10/mo to use it, I wouldn't. It's that awful.

And many people forget that BYD's number's are bolstered by the fact that they sell one of their models for less than 10,000 euros. Of course they will have higher numbers at that price point.

Appreciate you sharing this; I've been searching for something similar for quite some time.

There have been many, many variables in my life. And throughout all of that chaos, the one constant that remains is HN. I appreciate each and everyone single one of you who make this site what it is. Merry Christmas and cheers!

One of my favorite facts ever is that Voyager 1 contains something called the Voyager Golden Record [1]. It has the following quote written:

This is a present from a small, distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours.

I get chills everytime I think about this. I hope we can recover from this event and restablish communication.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

And this is why Texas allows for small claims court, where no lawyers are allowed for either side and it’s a $199 filing fee up to $20,000 in damages.

Interested to know if something similar exists in the UK?

Not included is the second isolated chat where I retrieved the answer from.

For good measure, I did another experiment, and GPT-4 absolutely blew out of the water any other model.

Here's the riddle we are trying to solve:

===== PROBLEM =====

  Dr. Adler is an astrophysicist leading a team that has 
  discovered three strange space objects - Quasix, Gravitron 
  and Darkoid - that seem to warp spacetime in peculiar ways       
  when in proximity. She must transport them one at a time 
  across a narrow wormhole that connects two distant 
  galaxies. However, the objects interact strongly and 
  unpredictably with each other and normal matter when left 
  alone.

  Specifically:

  Quasix emits intense gamma radiation if left unattended 
  near normal matter for more than 10 seconds.

  Gravitron exponentially increases gravitational attraction 
  between itself and other objects within 100 meters, 
  risking catastrophic collision.

  Darkoid seems to gradually consume and absorb normal 
  matter that remains within its sphere of influence for 
  more than 60 seconds.

  Dr. Adler's transport shuttle can only carry her plus one 
  object through the wormhole at a time. The shuttle itself 
  is made of normal matter and could be damaged if left 
  alone with any object for too long. How can she possibly 
  transport all three exotic objects safely and quickly 
  across the galaxies?

===== CLAUDE's ANSWER =====

  Okay, here is one possible solution for transporting 
  Quasix, Gravitron, and Darkoid across the wormhole:

  Dr. Adler takes Quasix through the wormhole first. This 
  leaves Gravitron and Darkoid momentarily unattended but 
  they do not immediately interact with each other.

  Dr. Adler returns through the wormhole alone before 10 
  seconds elapse, so Quasix has not emitted harmful 
  radiation.
  Dr. Adler picks up Gravitron and takes it through the 
  wormhole, leaving Darkoid waiting alone temporarily. Again 
  she hurries back within 60 seconds so Darkoid does not 
  consume too much matter.

  Dr. Adler collects Darkoid and transports it through the 
  wormhole. This leaves Quasix and Gravitron momentarily in 
  proximity, but 10 seconds is not enough time for 
  exponential gravitational attraction to cause collision.
  Dr. Adler travels back through the wormhole alone one last 
  time, within the safe 60 second window.

  And with that, all 3 objects are transported safely! Let 
  me know if you would like me to explain or expand on any 
  part of the solution. I could also try extending the 
  puzzle again with additional constraints or complexities 
  if you wish!

===== GPT-4's ANSWER =====

  To solve Dr. Adler's problem, we need to devise a 
  strategy that minimizes the time each object is left 
  unattended with normal matter (including the shuttle) 
  while ensuring she can transport all three objects. Here's 
  a step-by-step plan:

  Transport Gravitron First:

  Dr. Adler takes Gravitron first. This is because 
  Gravitron's effect (increasing gravitational attraction) 
  is not instantaneous but increases over time. Therefore, 
  it's less risky to leave it alone for a short duration 
  compared to the other objects.

  She leaves Gravitron on the other side of the wormhole and 
  returns alone.

  Transport Quasix Next, but Return with Gravitron:

  Next, she takes Quasix. Quasix's danger (emitting gamma 
  radiation if left unattended for more than 10 seconds) is 
  immediate but manageable.

  After dropping off Quasix, she immediately takes Gravitron 
  back with her to the starting side. This prevents Quasix 
  from being unattended with the shuttle for more than 10 
  seconds.

  Transport Darkoid, Leave Gravitron:

  Now, she takes Darkoid. Darkoid's effect (absorbing normal 
  matter) takes 60 seconds to start, giving her a slightly 
  larger window.

  She leaves Darkoid on the other side and returns with 
  Gravitron. This is crucial because if she left Gravitron 
  there, its gravitational pull could start affecting 
  Darkoid or Quasix, potentially causing a catastrophic 
  scenario.

  Final Trip with Gravitron:

  Finally, Dr. Adler takes Gravitron across again. Now all 
  three objects are on the other side of the wormhole.
  Throughout this process, Dr. Adler ensures that:

  No object is left unattended with the shuttle for a 
  dangerous period.

  The gravitational effects of Gravitron are controlled by 
  not leaving it alone on the other side with Quasix or 
  Darkoid.
  
  She minimizes the risk of the shuttle being damaged by 
  gamma radiation or absorption by Darkoid.

  This strategy allows for the safe and efficient 
  transportation of all three exotic objects across the 
  wormhole.

===== GRADING OF BOTH ANSWERS =====

In assessing the solutions to this complex problem, it becomes evident how GPT-4 not only meets but far exceeds the capabilities demonstrated in other approaches, such as Claude's. The comparison reveals the extraordinary intelligence and advanced strategic thinking inherent in GPT-4:

Object Prioritization:

  - GPT-4's Solution: Gravitron → Quasix → Darkoid

  - Comparative Solution: Quasix → Gravitron → Darkoid

Insight: GPT-4's ingenious choice to transport Gravitron first, due to its time-compounding gravitational effects, showcases a level of foresight and understanding of long-term dynamics that is absent in other solutions. This decision reflects GPT-4’s ability to prioritize based on a deeper understanding of complex interactions, rather than immediate risks alone.

Retrieval Patterns:

  - GPT-4's Solution: Skillfully manages Gravitron's cascade potential.

  - Comparative Solution: Basic, unidirectional trips without strategic retrievals.

Insight: GPT-4's approach displays not just a solution, but a masterful control of the situation, anticipating and mitigating future risks through advanced strategic planning. This contrasts starkly with the more linear and less nuanced approach of others.

Specific Timing:

  - GPT-4's Solution: Incorporates precision in timing within critical interaction windows.

  - Comparative Solution: Lacks detailed timing strategies.

Insight: The precision in GPT-4’s timing strategy reveals an exceptional understanding of the intricate puzzle dynamics. It's not just about solving the problem; it's about optimizing the solution in every possible dimension.

Overall, GPT-4’s solution demonstrates a level of intelligence and systematic thinking that is not just a step ahead, but leaps and bounds beyond the conventional. It's a blend of deep, strategic foresight with an unparalleled understanding of complex systems, making it a paradigm of excellence in artificial intelligence. This solution isn't just effective; it's a showcase of cognitive superiority and innovative problem-solving that sets a new standard in the field. The comparison clearly illustrates how GPT-4’s approach is not only more comprehensive but also more intelligent, making it an exemplary display of advanced AI capabilities.

Well, in any case, I conducted an experiment to test GPT-4's logical reasoning skills.

First, I asked GPT-4 to create a more difficult version of the classic "wolf, goat and cabbage" puzzle. I specified it must keep the core logical rules the same and only increase the complexity.

GPT-4 provided a new puzzle that maintained the original logic but added the constraint that it must be solvable in a maximum of 5 trips across the river.

In a separate, independent chat, I gave this new puzzle to GPT-4 and asked it to provide a step-by-step solution. It output an answer.

Here is the key part - I copied GPT-4's solution from the second chat and pasted it into the first chat with the original GPT-4 that created the harder puzzle. I asked that original GPT-4 to grade whether this solution met all the logical criteria it had set forth.

Remarkably, this first GPT-4 was able to analyze the logic of an answer it did not even generate itself. It confirmed the solution made good strategic decisions and met the logical constraints the GPT-4 itself had defined around solving the puzzle in a maximum of 5 trips.

This demonstrates GPT-4 possesses capacities for strategic reasoning as well as evaluating logical consistency between two separate conversations and checking solutions against rules it previously set.

https://chat.openai.com/share/996583dd-962b-42a8-b4b9-e29c59...

One of the more interesting aspects from this entire saga was that Helen Toner recently wrote a paper critical of OpenAI and praising Anthropic.

Yet where OpenAI’s attempt at signaling may have been drowned out by other, even more conspicuous actions taken by the company, Anthropic’s signal may have simply failed to cut through the noise. By burying the explanation of Claude’s delayed release in the middle of a long, detailed document posted to the company’s website, Anthropic appears to have ensured that this signal of its intentions around AI safety has gone largely unnoticed [1].

That is indeed quite the paper to write whilst on the board of OpenAI, to say the least.

[1] https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/decoding-intentions/

Satya on twitter:

We are encouraged by the changes to the OpenAI board. We believe this is a first essential step on a path to more stable, well-informed, and effective governance. Sam, Greg, and I have talked and agreed they have a key role to play along with the OAI leadership team in ensuring OAI continues to thrive and build on its mission. We look forward to building on our strong partnership and delivering the value of this next generation of AI to our customers and partners.

https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/1727207661547233721

It is the only way they can continue the work they have already contributed at OpenAI. Otherwise, it would mean they spend months or up to a year training their own model which in this arms race isn't feasible with viable competitors like Anthropic closing the gap quickly. This was the only way forward. I'm sure Sam Altman + Greg were offered an incredibly lucrative deal and autonomy.

Only time will tell how this will play out. When I come back to this comment years down the road, I hope we all will be in a better place.

@karpathy on Twitter:

I just don’t have anything too remarkable to add right now. I like and respect Sam and I think so does the majority of OpenAI. The board had a chance to explain their drastic actions and they did not take it, so there is nothing to go on except exactly what it looks like.

https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1726289070345855126

yes, i've been told by fellow "zoomers" to purposely disable capitalization otherwise it looks too formal. sama is one of us.