just turning off the stochastic sampling when they want deterministic output
How long can you trust that the operator of the server offering a particular LLM wll let you continue to choose a seed?
Failing that, stroke something else.
His hand written "artisan" code is being turned into machine code by a computer anyway.
A compiler is a deterministic process that runs locally on a modest home computer in reasonable time without needing an expensive NVIDIA GPU, doesn't regurgitate memorized copyrighted code from its training set, and doesn't boil the oceans in a datacenter for training plus use.
You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.
What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.
How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.
To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.
This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.
You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.
This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.
This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.
This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.
I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.
what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.
inequality is the resulr of ability to own property and I want this to be protected regardless how much property because I have seen the alternative and it is misery.
What is this unhealthy fixation on what someone is "worth"? It is not a billion tons of gold, it is not a quintillion tons of grains. It is a fiction, a fleeting number on paper that signifies current valuation of a business. Musk does not have a trillion dollars under his mattress. Not even 2 billion.
I think Musk is a con artist, but why is it difficult to wrap your head around a person benefiting less from his billions than the society? Society gets to use these billions in many ways more than the person himself. Society gets the products made by the businesses that are valued at billions, society gets the jobs and paychecks from all of this money. What does the person get except for a headache of dealing with the norms and rules and taxes imposed by the society upon his business? He really doesn't eat much more than the next guy, though his meals will be more expensive because they are cooked by some private chefs. But the cost of the food, chefs, housing, airplanes, whatever is negligible compared to the value of the company that society gets to enjoy. Even just the trading of the stock market allows people to have something to invest into, there are jobs, there are products, then there are various contracts required to maintain this business, so there are other side businesses that rely on the gigantic companies owned by the billionaire.
Again, a billionaire personally can use maybe a few hundred million dollars, maybe even a couple of billion (if he buys a couple of yachts and a few mansions). The gain to the guy is completely negligible compared to the gain to the society. It is like infrastructure in itself, that's what these huge businesses are. To say that this is 'Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook' is simply to use a personal attack in place of an argument.
But again, I am fully convinced Musk is a gigantic fraud, running his empire almost exclusively on vaporware.
The US solved this problem 150 years ago. First with the observation that immigrants acculturate. Second with the acceptance that elements of their culture are going to get melded in to form a new culture. Culture is never static, anyway, it always drifts and morphs. Immigration just changes it a bit faster. But it's good! This ongoing immigrant-driven culture change is what made the US a superpower. Embrace it.
Indeed is USED to work this way....and if so, sure, cool.
The trouble is...it no longer works that way, there is no more 'melting pot'.
For various reasons, one being we've let WAY too many in at once....they do not come here to become Americans and assimilate, they are here to take over and make a Mini-whatever country they came from
They segregate, they do NOT learn the language and in Muslim cases, they try to change our laws to fit their religion.
In the old days, you didn't see protests with migrants waving flags of their home land, but instead were waving the US flag....
So, no that old way isn't working....and if we don't stop the influx....we risk losing our country even more than we risk losing it right now.
Doing that in the Commonwealth of Virginia is just going to get you a bigger fine. Radar detectors are illegal (or at least used to be the last time I drove there).
Glad most of the US doesn't suck like the Commonwealth of Virginia.....where we are free to know when we are being observed and electronically surveyed by the police.
Fortunately in the UK we have average speed checks over long distances so arseholes find a hole in their bank account and maybe points on their driving license too.
Ah....well, while it is getting bad here in the US, at least we're not the dystopian hell the UK is at this point....
Governments are supposed to correct market failures. When a technology has a trajectory to be an eventual winner but faces short-term obstacles that the market isn't handling, that's an appropriate time for government to step in.
I need to get my readers, I'm just NOT seeing it....
If 30 seems safe to him, who should argue?
Then he needs to get the fuck OFF the highway and drive regular roads with lower speed limits....until he can earn his "big boy pants" and learn to drive at highway speeds with the adults.
If you can't hack it, then you don't belong there impeding other people with the proper driving skills.
A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.
