I'd say it will morph, and elements will remain in the republican party but not intact.
Trump is a huge magnetising force but without him, it doesn't really have anyone else. Sure people like Vance will try to further their own ambition but none of them will succeed in taking on the mantle and keeping it as the force is today.
I don't think anyone in 2014, let alone 2013, predicted Trump would be the leader of the Republican party in 2016. It seems a little early to make the call that nobody will fill the vacuum between now and 2028.
It's the first non-US city that they've done public testing in. They've been doing test track work in Europe for awhile now, and Cruise did some Japanese/middle eastern testing before they folded.
A few here have commented on different aspects, and they have their part to play but I agree with you, market fragmentation is the scale killer.
From an outside perspective it might appear like Europe is a true single market like the US but it isn't. Scaling to a European level isn't impossible but it is difficult. Some of that will just be difficult to do anything about, language, different cultures, etc.
On the political side I'm sure there is plenty more the EU can do but I don't see the will.
Market fragmentation is a measurable phenomenon, as far as a language goes. The language barrier is just the cost of a translator. Is that cost prohibitively high in Europe? I hear a lot of explanations of why Europe has fewer tech companies than America, but they are almost never backed by statistics. The most obvious answer continues to be the Bretton Woods system, by which large amounts of money are funnelled into America, seemingly without reason. China inverts this flow by debasing its currency, and Europe does not.
> The language barrier is just the cost of a translator.
Is it?
> Market fragmentation is a measurable phenomenon, as far as a language goes.
Market fragmentation isn't about language fragmentation – the EU has no single market for services currently, which means if you want to launch a product EU-wide you are effectively launching a product in 27 different countries. There is some harmonization, but not much. If you launch a product in the US you have a large fully harmonized single market.
The most bizarre thing is that the loudest critics of EUs market fragmentation are usually the most aggressive blockers of integration that would mitigate these issues.
There is the expression in English, rubbing your/their hands with glee. All context dependent as for the physicality. Someone holding their hands tightly and rubbing them might be nervous for example. Someone fast moving them but not cold could be more joyous.
I don't agree with that framing. It reads more as saying what Google did was worse than it appears, not waving away.
Whatever your own opinion, Google did it out of what they perceived to be good intentions (and very likely business sense given a global audience for their products). Yet their intentions directly lead to unintended consequences. Google is being a baby with a gun in essence. Like he says, what if they decide to ask it to solve climate change and it decides to wipe humans out?
Obviously it's still very theoretical and can't do anything like that, but the point is more that perhaps Google doesn't have the culture necessarily to truly interrogate their actions.
>This event is significant because it is major demonstration of someone giving a LLM a set of instructions and the results being totally not at all what they predicted.
Replace LLM with computer in that sentence, is it still novel? Laughably far from it, unexpected results are one of the defining features of moderately complex software programs going all the way back to the first person to program a computer. Some of the results are unexpected, but a lot are not, because it's literally doing what the prompt injection tells it to. Which isn't all that surprising but sure anyway...
>Obviously it's still very theoretical and can't do anything like that, but the point is more that perhaps Google doesn't have the culture necessarily to truly interrogate their actions.
> Whatever your own opinion, Google did it out of what they perceived to be good intentions (and very likely business sense given a global audience for their products)
That makes even less sense, because most countries “globally” are internally quite homogenous. If someone in Bangladesh or China writes “show me pictures of people walking outside,” it’s even more jarring to deliberately insert random Latinos, East Asians, and Africans.
Given Google’s global audience, it might want to detect the customer’s location and show Chinese people pictures of Chinese people, and Japanese people pictures of Japanese people. That actually makes a lot of sense. But that’s not what they did.
In other words, even though it tried to be inclusive, a US company ended up being US-centric in that random Latinos, East Asians, and Africans are what you are likely to see when walking around the US, but not most of the rest of the world :)
While I'd say so, I don't think in the medium future it would have made much difference.
China wants ensure control over strategic elements anyway. I suspect that the west has started betting on China intending to primarily rely on domestic production. Possibly to preempt the future, avoid companies getting entangled further, and slow China down even if just marginally, the west has settled this policy. I say west but this is more a US thing, Europe was more reluctant to follow it.
No need to bet on the intent. At least for software in financial services, starting from 2027 all Chinese companies are supposed to use 100% homegrown software. Any use of foreign-supplied software must be explicitly approved by the respective government body.
The mandated fraction of Chinese software vs. other software is already supposed to be >65%, and the floor is being raised every year.
Absolutely. Becoming world class at anything, especially anything competitive, also involves failing about a million times on the way up. In coaching chess one of the first things one tends to ask is what the student wants to achieve. And the typical response has something to do with winning. But they don't need you for that. If they just want to win, then they but need to never play anybody better than themselves!
Improving involves blood, sweat, tears, and defeat. Only to come back ever stronger.
You can fail or have success on many dimensions. There is probably some skill you are good innately, or better than a large chunk of population. On that dimension you will have probably have built a pretty good self-esteem over the years, but you know that you can still improve (hence comparing yourself with who got 4 medals if you have 2) but fear of failing will not completely block you, only stress you more to raise the bar.
On the other hand, in domains where you are not so good by default, if you are a perfectionist you can totally risk being paralyzed until you think you are "good enough for it".
I don't think there is a "good by default" dimension. Maybe a "learning easier" dimension. I'd argue that in such advanced spheres comparison becomes secondary. First an foremost it's about the activity. Like friends competing in a game of cards. It's about having fun with friends. Winning is for having a purpose to play.
reply