sackfield

I would be thrilled, if I were board member I would want the organisation to succeed and ChatGPT can't be described as anything other than an unmitigated success. I wouldn't feel the need to make myself the main character of the story and act like my permission was required for innovation. But that's just me.

Every culture at some stage has its dark ages, western countries did exactly the same thing not more than 200 years ago. They changed, all things change. Your argument regarding the high water mark of cultural morality could be used by Europeans about Americans currently (and frequently is). It doesn't make America a bad country in my eyes though, still find it amazing. I'm not going to judge each place by its lowest points but the gradient its on.

Given that I doubt you are following the high water of cultural morality as it shifts around the world, sounds to me like bigotry might be fueling you here.

Having optimism about the future means it will change for the better. You are referring to the present. Weird how many people find this concept uncomfortable, and perhaps is a good example of my original argument.

I've always thought the purpose of code review was to determine if the implementation was consistent from an architectural perspective, bug finding seems like something that should be caught by unit tests and other tools (unless you happen to catch it by chance).

In Dubai right now, one of the things I really like about this place is the optimism they have for the future. It's exhausting working in tech and being in places that don't believe engineering will usher in a better future (but somehow think legal policy will). I'm visiting the museum of the future tomorrow, can't wait.

I feel you, however I would say at the very least I find the YC submission process a very useful exercise and encourage all people thinking of doing a startup to complete it, even if you don't submit it. When I submitted to YC and got an interview with them, they were extremely courteous to me, way more so than the VCs and investors I'd dealt with, and while they ultimately didn't accept me they sent me a lot of feedback with how I could improve for next time. That is much appreciated and I won't forget it.

As a counter point it would be nice to see some data around predictors such as degrees, connections etc.

The best content is not created by luddites. Creative curiousity is generally a necessity for great art.

It seems quite appropriate that luddites will opt out of the AI training space. Hopefully it will lead to better quality output.

It's refreshing to see an organisation act with restraint. It's easy to overstep authority by acting like a benevolent dictator, especially when people try and compress a complex topic down to "good vs bad", so it's great that not only recognise the complexity of the issue but refuse to act rashly.

UBI experiments are mostly pointless until they reach a national level. Otherwise you end up giving people a bunch of extra cash from the working economy, and surprise surprise, people are generally happier and better off with more free cash. The question is what happens when you do this on a large enough scale to affect economic production.

You are definitely right, this is a risky business: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/21/qa-chilling-journal...

Still, I wonder if there is a structure which resolves liability.

I wonder if a better model for journalism is the model employed by Hindenburg Research. They find stories that when published will have a devastating impact on a company, short the company, then drop their research and reap the change in market conditions. For everything there isn't a market for prediction markets and side-effects on other assets might make up the gap.

The way I see it, this would require these publications to be truthful about their reporting, if it was revealed they weren't the market would no longer react as strongly to their signals.

Thank god for index funds. Having said that a disaster is one classification and rebalance away.

They don't need to grow, efficiency can grow though as very aptly demonstrated in the 20th century.

I think the market has shown that growth is the solution rather than rationing. Lots of the humanitarian improvements of the 20th century (such as number of people starving) are improved due to market forces innovating on doing more with less. The same will no doubt happen to energy. Consumption is the catalyst.

It's weird that people are acting like commodities are under some sort of license when they are purchased. As far as I know they aren't. A world that tries to regulate this scares me more than one where people participate in futile hashing.

I have noticed that there are a group of people actively pushing for these outcomes, to them this wasn't a mistake but a big victory. When they inevitably get criticised its very convenient to pretend like this was ordained by the general public, but in reality the general public are very much against this, they just don't have the priviledge of being close to the development.

Strikes me that the people who advocate for these outcomes follow the old mantra of "Privatising the winnings and socialising the losses", any win for this ideology isn't considered a general public win, but a win in spite of the general public, whereas any loss is always due to the general public. Both can't be true.

Some struggles I've had trying to implement Bazel in greenfield startups.

I have really tried to like Swift, and with new projects I do tend to use it, but legacy projects in Objective-C still make me smile that I get to go back to the old familiar language. I also like its interoperability with C++ through Objective-C++.

TPUs: https://cloud.google.com/tpu?hl=en

It's nice to know this also applies to the UK even after Brexit (still a member of the ECHR).

"At FoundationDB, once we hit the point of having ~zero bugs and confidence that any new ones would be found immediately, we entered into this blessed condition and we flew. Programming in this state is like living life surrounded by a force field that protects you from all harm. Suddenly, you feel like you can take risks"

When this state hits it really is a thing to behold. Its very empowering to trust your system to this extent, and to know if you introduce a bug a test will save you.

Is there a real market for this kind of LLM? Or is this the result of in-group preferences?

EDIT: It is very very funny to talk to though.

If this is economically unproductive work, why are the miners being rewarded for it? Is it just that the market hasn't figured out what the detractors here seem to know? Or is it that they don't understand as much about economics as they think they do?

How does it survive? Is it that there hasn't been a big enough legal challenge against it?

At the start of the article there is this statement:

"There were at least nine drug-related deaths"

I can't wrap my head around this, I know that smuggling drugs into jails is relatively common practice in the US but it seems like we have just normalised this when we shouldn't have. A jail is a facility that the government has complete control over and even more relaxed restrictions on what they can subject people to, so how does this happen? Aren't their CCTV cameras everywhere? Microphones? Surely these incidents should be so well tracked and then some sort plan formed to prevent this, or if the guards are corrupt and enabling this maximal punishment.

Don't even get me started on allowing prisoners to control the food supply of other prisoners... just seems like such an obviously bad idea.

Do you happen to know if those low intelligence wealthy people are slowly losing their wealth? Or is there a structure (like a trust) that administers this so they can't lose too much of it by their own action.

I've used BankID, I think its a fantastic system.

I am looking forward to the stressors this places upon identity in the online world so we can develop something better than showing a picture of an ID card. Some sort of public/private key repository kept by licensing authorities would be a more preferable solution to me at an initial glance.

Whenever people talk about how much wealth is comfortable (or ethical) to have, its usually just a notch above their own (well within their social class status).

To be fair I don't know your wealth at all but its just an observation I've had from talking with others about this. The end result of this would be to make these people some of the wealthiest in the country by dragging the wealth curve to just above their level. It sounds like a moral hazard to me.