If your discussion can't survive me, just how fragile and vulnerable is its quality? Is this weakness in your thought why Trump got elected?

Do you know that Gemini shares your economic assumptions? But after arguing with it for 20 minutes, how satisfying is it to get it to back off from your typically mainstream view of money and its relation to real resources and labor?

Gemini (after a long argument citing Hicks, shadow banking, derivatives, etc.):

"while the total net worth of the planet is physically limited by resources, the financial claims on those resources (via credit) can and do exceed them during periods of expansion, [...]"

"That's the problem with inflation, it's grand theft"

Since we all acknowledge that markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent, why stick to quaint old fairy tales like the quantuty theory of money, especially as there was practically no inflation, despite mainstream predictions by the Fed itself, after the 400% increase in base money?

Remember Fischer Black in "Noise"?

"the price level and rate of inflation are literally indeterminate. They are whatever people think they will be. They are determined by expectations, but expectations follow no rational rules. If people believe that certain changes in the money stock will cause changes in the rate of inflation, that may well happen, because their expectations will be built into their long term contracts."

If inflation is just psychological noise, do you think utilities would find some other excuse to pressure government regulators to let them increase retsil rates? Would they manufacture another crisis over bitcoin, EVs, or video games to justify why they have to create a scarcity?

And, if inflation is just noise, not a rational price signal, why not index it away (i.e. print money faster than prices rise), as has in fact been happening (Fed has increased base money over 600% since 2008 while cumulative inflation over that same period has been maybe 50%)?

Why ignore cloud albedo?

Did you just try to bite the hand that feeds you, butvfail to even get them to notice you?

Anyone remember the big hullabaloo about the IE icon installed by default on Windows computers?

Gemini:

"The "hullabaloo" about the Internet Explorer (IE) icon on Windows computers was centered on major antitrust lawsuits in the late 1990s, where Microsoft was accused of leveraging its Windows operating system monopoly to unfairly dominate the web browser market."

For all the anti-trusters out there, how'd that work out?

"In the late 1990s, Microsoft began including IE as a default, non-removable part of Windows 95 and 98. [...] Microsoft executives testified that removing even a simple desktop icon would violate their rights to deliver a complete product and was akin to "butchering" the operating system."

The more things change, eh?

Im actually not a fan of the AGPL at all. I think its intention is noble, but in practice it tends to get used as a shareware license instead of a free software license.

The GPL is very clear about its mandate. You can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you dont go distributing it, and if you do distribute it, here are your responsibilities.

The AGPL however violates GPLs freedom 0 , the right to USE the software however you wish (as long as you dont distribute it without source and a few other distribution requirements).

That means , for a start, its not compatible with GPL2 (GPL3 has a waiver for this). But to my mind the bigger issue is how its used. I have found very few examples of AGPL3 being used without an option of "dual licensing" (aka "shareware"), and since the AGPL3 pretty much prohibits almost any commercial useage as part of a web service, the end result is a license that effectively say "You cant test this, but if you use it for real, you must pay up".

Its a shareware license, not a free software license.

Oh sure, we can also say that Israel "banana'd" in Gaza too, if we change the meaning of the word banana. So sure Israel committed genocide, for some definition of the word genocide.

Oh really, I thought it was the part where China annex part of India in a war that India tried hard to avoid.

Tibet, Sinkiang, Korea, Nepal, Bhutan, India, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan. Literally every neighbour hates China except Pakistan and Myanmar. The latter is a crime state.

Why can't it say "I'm sorry Sam, I can't cut off chatters who haven't paid"?

If natural language is just matrix multiplication, what isn't?

"it's literally just randomly putting words together after years of training by cube farms filled with actual human beings clicking on the generations that sound least retarded for eight hours a day."

Why leave out the ground-breaking attention mechanism, unless you don't understand LLM architecture?

Would Tibet like a word?

"a fancy database query with math and a random number generator"

How come none of that was able to generate grammatical English before the Attention mechanism was invented? Did you miss the paradigm shift?