Comment Re: I'd take it (Score 0) 138
Your jealousy of America is showing. It is ironic that you seek to bash the country that made all of the technology you used to leave the comment.
Your jealousy of America is showing. It is ironic that you seek to bash the country that made all of the technology you used to leave the comment.
I've been using two frontier models, each acting as the other's adversarial reviewer, and it's worked out quite well. I've been able to write production code since the beginning of the year, and I've noticed a marked improvement in that production code. Over the last three months, the models really are getting better at the frontier.
The one caveat is that AI will try to solve every possible edge case with an overly robust solution that adds a lot of computational, codebase, and unit-testing overhead when it is unnecessary. It doesn't know how to manage the probabilities of edge cases popping up and what to do if those edge cases do happen. There are some edge cases in my business where they are vanishingly unlikely to happen, and the correct response is to log the problem, deny access, and fire off a quick message to operations. The AI models will give you an overbuilt monstrosity. It really wants to hit a gnat with a sledgehammer.
I've found that the biggest problem I have to solve with AI is teaching it to act like my favorite designer and engineer, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, who used to say, "Perfection lies not in asking, 'Is there nothing left to add?' but rather, 'Is there nothing left to take away?'"
He will be missed.
Any time you see a sociopath up close, it does not make them more sympathetic.
Quite the opposite, I think people will come away from the documentary wondering, "How on earth did so many VCs get taken in by this charlatan?"
You're welcome.
No, this is the exact reason why the ACA is a disaster. Insurance company profits are capped at a percentage of the cost of care, so they are motivated to drive up costs. But what about the uncovered treatments that the hospitals have to eat?
I heard exactly this during a consulting project in the health insurance space. We set up the ACA so that driving up costs made sense to hospitals and insurance companies who manage the major entitlements (medicare, medicaid). Zero incentives to drive costs down.
Real reform would have meant reforming the way insurance had become a bureaucratic nightmare at all levels. Obama was too cowardly to fight the insurance lobby (and to be fair, so were his predecessors on both sides), so instead he made the problem worse. ACA has raised everyone's premiums by more than triple over 15 years, with worse patient outcomes.
Obama was not a centrist. He gave us a huge socialist edifice in the ACA and was remarkably cavalier about bombing other nations, even more so than Trump or Bush by total nations. He was excellent at removing illegals though, so maybe kinda a centrist? Not sure those balance out.
Google knows full well this makes no sense, but Elon Musk said we would put data centers in space so everyone has to act like they will do it too. Heaven forbid Wall Street catches on early to the data center debt bomb.
Biden was sworn in January 20, 2021. Way to self-own.
I thought this thing could learn from itself? Why are people training it?
Oh that's right, it's a word-guessing machine with a much more limited use-case than they claimed.
Oh man I forgot covfefe, used to have a mug with that on it. Good times.
The argument confuses natural death with intentional killing. Many embryos may be lost spontaneously, but that does not make deliberately killing one morally equivalent to a miscarriage; just as the fact that many infants die naturally does not justify killing infants. The extent of spontaneous embryo loss is itself uncertain, and vulnerability does not make human life expendable.
The relevant question is not whether the child is viable, wanted, or likely to survive, but what the act intentionally does. An embryo is a living human being from conception, and abortion deliberately ends that human life.
“Murder” is commonly a legal term with jurisdiction-specific definitions, so “intentional killing of an innocent human being” may be more precise. But morally, that is exactly how Catholic teaching characterizes direct abortion: the deliberate killing of an innocent human being in utero, regardless of age or stage of development.
This is how Tolkien would have seen it, this is how billions of human see it - because it is true.
Your libelous comments aside, what is a fact is that Democrats have presided over the murder of tens of millions of pre-born children. Numbers that would make Sauron blanch.
Tolkien would have voted Republican, not out of a love of less than virtuous mean tweet presidents, but because he would abhor the vile demonic practices of the Democrat party.
You purport to love Tolkien with your handle, Gwaihir, but Tolkien was a devout Catholic and moral conservative. He would have voted for Trump.
"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw