It's typical Empire Hubris: thinking you can get away with anything because you are special.
Trump doesn't really know what he's doing. He surrounded himself with yes-men that know perfectly not to contradict him.
The global Dollar order was built to American advantage. Trump is dismantling it for no reason. If the dollar order crumbles, the US will discover it has much lower productivity.
There is no American exceptionalism: it's just Dollar exceptionalism. No Dollar, no exceptionalism.
I agree, losing reserve currency status would make American gdp / living standards to come way closer to Europe for the simple fact it won't be able to permanently increase its debt deficits.
However its far from clear losing reserve status is going to happen, sure some countries will try to diversify but others are probably too tight inside the American umbrella (for defense for example).
But yeah, surprises can happen so interesting times.
> would make American gdp / living standards to come way closer to Europe
Why are you making it sound like EU is a third world country? Are you aware that living standards are higher in many European countries than the US, right?
> Are you aware that living standards are higher in many European countries than the US, right?
If we measure the total pie then its much smaller in Europe than in the U.S (I mean total wealth/gdp per capita). Only small countries like Norway or Switzerland have high gdp, in France or Germany its almost 50% lower than in the U.S.
Now the pie does not distribute equally in the U.S that's true, but still, there are tons of millionaires in the U.S and I mean pretty regular people (doctors, finance, software devs etc) that had they lived in Europe they would have been comfortable and nothing more. think something like 100k Euro a year (at best) instead of 3-5 times as much which is what they make in the U.S. If the U.S loses reserve status there just won't be enough money to go around for those salaries, or if there will there will be a horrible inflation, either way it just wont be sustainable.
P.S - lots of middle class people in the so called rich European countries like Germany or the Netherlands cannot afford heating anymore. So no, it is definitely not third world but its also not particulalrly rich. The main advantage though is Europe has mostly free healthcare and the U.S is an absolute mismanaged mess in that regard.
No. They’re not, anywhere in Europe. This is a mystifying talking point based on wishful thinking and vastly overestimating the non-monetary value of a larger social safety net. The median US citizen is much, much richer. The first quintile US citizen is fairly comparable to first quintile Europeans in income and in-kind transfers.
But it is certainly the case Trump is trying to bring US income down to something closer to EU levels, which will hopefully cause Congress to get its spine back.
> others are probably too tight inside the American umbrella (for defense for example).
The UK is reconsidering. If the bloody UK is not confident, who else would be? They might be too tight inside for now, but that is a strategic weakness and it will only go one way. Short of the US making it a satellite, it will only loosen.
But a large degree of the exception was being excepted from being blown to smithereens during WW2, which is the kind of opportunity that doesn't usually come around twice.
> which is the kind of opportunity that doesn't usually come around twice.
On the contrary, it most definitely did come around twice (hence the 2), and those same geographic advantages are still at play, barring thermonuclear war. It wasn't pure chance that Europe combusted in WW2, Europe had been on fire off and on for hundreds of years. Its geography just lends itself to large scale conflict.
The recent period of peace is an exception, but it's not the first exception and there's good reason to suppose this one won't last forever either.
I could say the same about the period of peace in the USA which is only from 1865 (Edit: 1865 is the civil war, but thought hey let's look, and it seems there were conflicts with Indians up to 1924!) . It is an exception, because before that it was "the wild west", with various conflicts around.
And not sure how this will play out long term, I don't get an impression that USA states are so aligned on everything.
> I could say the same about the period of peace in the USA which is only from 1865
You can't really compare a period of 160 years to a period of 80, especially given that there's war in Europe once again so the streak is already broken.
80 years is actually shorter than the gap between the Napoleonic wars and WW1 (~100 years), and only represents one generation that lived and died without a local war. On the other hand, 160 years out of 249 is 64% of the existence of the US spent in one continuous period of no widespread local conflict, and represents 5 generations that were born and died without any war on their doorstep. How is that an exception?
> Europe had been on fire off and on for hundreds of years.
The point was that armed conflicts also happened on North American soil (even if consider only USA soil) for long time, so not so different for what happened in Europe. The last period of peace is as much an exception for one as it is for the other given a significant part of the history of the continents.
Also, if we think of countries, there were various European countries that did not participate in or had fights on their territory, during neither WWI or WWII (Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain) and some of those did not have a war on their soil for similar as USA ...
> The last period of peace is as much an exception for one as it is for the other given a significant part of the history of the continents.
But... it's not. 160 years of straight uninterrupted time without total war out of 250 makes no-total-war the norm, not the exception. >50% of the last 250 years have been spent in one continuous period of people not having to wonder if bombs would be falling on their heads today.
That's totally different than Europe, whose longest gap between total war was the 100-year gap between Napoleon and WW1.
> Also, if we think of countries, ... some of those did not have a war on their soil for similar as USA
Yes, but those are each the size of a US state, so unsurprisingly didn't lead to them taking the place of world superpower.
If you're going to be criticizing my argument it would be helpful to keep in mind that I was replying to this:
> But a large degree of the exception was being excepted from being blown to smithereens during WW2, which is the kind of opportunity that doesn't usually come around twice.
You're taking things in totally different directions that aren't relevant to the question of how often the US will continue to be the largest Western country with no threat of total war on domestic soil.
> But... it's not. 160 years of straight uninterrupted time without total war out of 250 makes no-total-war the norm,
Your choose to mention arbitrarily 250 years. I see no reason for that, as there were things happening on the same soil before those 250 years.
> That's totally different than Europe
Europe is not a country, as mentioned not all Europe had the same conditions.
> that aren't relevant to the question of how often the US will continue to be the largest Western country with no threat of total war on domestic soil.
This started about "excepted from being blown to smithereens during WW2, which is the kind of opportunity that doesn't usually come around twice.". Nowadays, some countries in Europe do have nuclear weapons which reduces somehow the possibility to be the only ones blown up. If a nuclear power is hit by nukes, it will retaliate automatically hitting the complete list of enemies.
I think we both exposed our arguments and as we don't seem to be inclined to take into account each other analysis (the 250 years, Europe as a country, risks of current conflicts, etc.) will not add others comments - we can agree to disagree. I still learned various things I did not know before so it was a useful conversation.
Since you edited to reply to my comment I'm stuck leaving a second reply: the conflicts with Indians were not at all the same as the kind of total war we're talking about with the wars of religion, Napoleonic Wars, and the World Wars. The subject of this thread is wars that lead to mass destruction of national power and lead to other countries taking the lead.
For future reference, it makes for much easier reading if you just reply to me instead of editing your comment to respond. This isn't a Notion doc, it's a forum, and I'm not leaving feedback on an artifact, I'm engaging you in a discussion.
>Not anymore with many nations not all that far behind.
Nothing has changed. The dollar simply has no alternatives. The EU? After the freezing of Russian assets? Uncompetitive. BRICS? Even worse, you have one dictator literally controlling all monetary policy. Gold and bitcoin are too volatile.
By BRICS I've mean China and the Yuan. And in China there is exactly one person, who is deciding how reasonable or unreasonable any policy will be tomorrow.
Although it now seems as if that was massively inaccurate, things were very near to turning out completely differently in the first days of the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlttS0N7uVA
And they're backing down on just enough woke stuff due to the concern about the lack of participation of checked-out-of-society White men in said (world) war.
Everyone puts taxes on some sectors. It's economic policy. Trump is not doing economic policy. He's using a simple formula to ideologically reduce trade deficit. No matter the consequences!
Trust the experts: America will be poorer because of these tariffs.
Why don’t you show some data supporting a more clearly-stated theory? All countries use economic policy, but there’s usually some kind of strategy involved - for example, the EU has a tariff on American steel and aluminum because that was retaliation from Trump’s earlier tariffs. Similarly, a lot of the EU agricultural duties are both protecting local industries but also enforcing quality or safety standards (this is also the reason for the Australian beef imbalance the President mentioned: they have a strict mad cow containment plan American producers dont follow).
The American action doesn’t follow a discernible strategy other than the fantasy that we can somehow “win” every trade relationship. That’s why you see massive taxes on poor countries we buy a lot of raw materials from - Madagascar can’t afford to buy the kind of expensive goods we primarily make, but we love to buy vanilla, so that trade “deficit” is both voluntary and to our mutual benefit.
Degrees from Europe are very transferable. Germany, Italy, France, the nordics etc. all offer engineering degrees in english basically for free (or close) for all EU citizens.
I cannot think of any better and cheaper education path.
Some of the best engineers (and professors!) in the US actually got their education from minor and major Universities in Europe where they got their education for free.
I think you now have to pay for education if you come from outside the EU, at least in France. It is still cheaper than the US because it is massively subsidized by the working class. A person coming to EU only for free /cheap education is not welcomed.
It could change but, so far, most universities haven't applied that rule (even though they could). Even then, we'd be talking 2800 to 3800€ per year, a far cry from $20k.
I wouldn't recommend France, though, because engineering is mainly not taught in universities but in so-called Grandes Ecoles (they're engineering schools), which span years 3-5 and are only accessed after competitive exams at the end of year 2, from a sort of boarding high-school++ program (Classes Préparatoires).
For theoretical studies or even applied fundamental disciplines (like applied math), it's a different story, universities are excellent and they're easy to access (I mean, the better ones are selective, but you could get on board at any time using other degrees, unlike Grandes Ecoles) and get an internationally recognized degree from.
EDIT: Hadn't noticed OP is from the EU, in that case they would pay the same as French people, that's around 500€ per year max.
Yeah, you could go to e.g. TU Delft for 2500€ per year, tuition is often priced by EU/non-EU. That's basically CalTech or MIT level education in engineering for 1/30th of the price. You'd have to get in, of course.
How does it hold up on long stuff? I use Elevenlabs Studio daily and once things start to get into the chapters long, the voice can really start to go off the rails. It'd say they've solved a lot of this over the past 2/3 months, but it does still happen on long stuff.
In autoregressive models error accumulates over time. He likely means the voice starts to make odd sounds/gets lower quality. It would be really interesting if OP could share a clip of this phenomenon!
Various different things can happen, it would take me quite some time to dig up examples but at least with elevenlabs you don't get the clicks and pops you get like on notebook LM for example. 11labs instability comes in the forms of intonation, pitch, accent, garbled words or even once language. I've only seen it happen in the 3k+ words gen's I've done, usually actually around the 75% point of the narration of whatever I've converted, and on average lasting a couple of seconds top.
Yeah - I've experienced this with eleven reader (I don't think you can gen text this long anymore using the reader app, lol) but switching voices fixed it for me
I can go back and try to repro and get a recording....
I think there's an issue somewhere in Kokoro though which means it doesn't actually take advantage of MPS, I did get a modified version up and running, but it was no faster than CPU, even though it passed all the internal tests using mps.
It's not in one Chapter, but Chapters are called "Section" (and so ignored!). It should be simple to have a dictionary of the different units that are used (I would assume "Part" would fail too, as would the hilarious "Catpter" of some cat-themed kid book, but that's more complicated I guess?).
It did finish and result is basically as good as the provided example, so I'd say quite good! I'll plan to process some book before going to bed next time!
Chapter 1 read in 6033.30 seconds (33 characters per second)
I make fresh tomato pasta sauces this way as well as the cheese based ones sometimes. A bit of butter and olive oil in the sauce, minimal water in with the pasta (I really like orecchiette) and finish the pasta off in the sauce with a bit of the minimal remaining water. Very clingy, very silky.
The pasta plate is called Primo Piatto meant to be eaten as the first part of the main course. The Secondo Piatto is the second part of the main course usually a meat dish, is meant to be eaten after the pasta. Hence why, the pasta course is small and needs to be small. However, there are exceptions, where pasta dishes can be the full main course on its own. The reason most italian pasta dishes are only a part of the main course is because they're not a balanced meal, and therefore will not properly feed you.
The concept of having multi-course meals is foreign to the USA both historically and culturally. The word "Entree" actually means appetizer in french, while in the USA it means main dish for whatever reason. Its even more ridiculous that USA restaurants that pretend to be fancy put "entrees" instead of "main dishes" on their menus.
> Its even more ridiculous that USA restaurants that pretend to be fancy put "entrees" instead of "main dishes" on their menus.
I smell "epic-ism": you know the French definition proximal to your own lifetime, but not the earlier one that essentially meant hearty meat courses.
Also, there were even "large entrées" from the same period. From Wikipedia[1]:
"Large joints of meat (usually beef or veal) and large whole fowl (turkey and geese) were the grandes or grosses entrées of the meal."
Maybe that definition was just from an influx of "ridiculous Americans" traveling to France during the Enlightenment so they could pretend to be fancy.
Thank you! I was totally caught off guard by the swiftness and harshness of the response to what I thought was a pretty innocent comment about the joy of Italian pasta.
If I had to guess, the pasta serving in the video was no more than about 150-200 calories. Dry pasta is 370 calories per 100g and pecorino is 390 per 100g. That serving was maybe 30g worth of pasta and maybe 10g worth of cheese.
Needless to say, that’s a snack-sized portion of pasta, not a meal.
I wouldn't sweat it. It was probably just one of our resident "transcendent biohackers" who thinks eating is an impediment to maximizing their human potential.
Stim use is an effective appetite suppressant, after all.
740 kcal of pasta and cheese went into the dish, and under half (370 kcal) ended up on that plate. People vary, but even short, old people with no exercise have a maintenance metabolism of 3x that. To maintain my weight I need 10x that.
I suspect most of the reactions here are cultural (do you get most of your calories with breakfast, are restaurant meals larger or smaller than home meals, is that the only food with the meal or do you typically have other starters and desserts, do you snack throughout the day, ...).
I typically eat once a day, sometimes adding in a small breakfast, I don't snack, I don't really care for desserts, and certainly for a weeknight meal I might make cacio e pepe but definitely won't also whip up breadsticks, cocktails, and a few sides most of the time. Nearly anyone with those eating habits would find this a small amount of food (in the sense that if they ate it instead of their normal dinner regularly they'd lose weight quickly, at least 3lbs per month, 25lbs in my case).
Even people who eat 3 square meals and snack some (no more than half a family-size bag of chips) through the day will find this on the small side (losing weight if all 3 meals are that portion) if they're moderately active, no older than 40, and no shorter than 5'10.
> Ah yes Italians, famous for being stingy with portions, feeding you the minimum portion possible.
So, this is an often [0] repeated misconception: you have to differ from family style eating, and that of professional cuisine gastronomy. The former is what you are attributing this POV, whereas a professional kitchen that focuses on the tre/quattro piatti format (prix fixe) the whole point is to provide small(er) portions between courses, often in order to get the waiter/sommelier to drop the wine card to match the palette/dish, which is where the real money is made in restaurants.
When I ran kitchens in Italy, we often sold proteins at a loss (at least the first 5-10 orders) in order to promote the local wine/vineyards that we got a massive discount on by buying half the harvest/yield seasons anf sometimes years ahead and could mark-up the bottle--it's your basic loss leader approach, and pre-service is often where these things are tweaked and refined with a very clear intention for FOH to move the booze to make up for the losses in the kitchen. The owner I worked for during this time had a family owned dairy/caseficco business where we got our cheeses where we also got lamb from as well depending on the time of year.
Its fun, to an extent, especially with weekend specials and selling out low-cost high margin dishes every night, but honestly after 3 seasons of this I realized I was just a middle man for back room deals with vineyards/distilleries that happened long before I ever worked there. I realized I preferred to cook seasonal in agrotourism settings as it hit all the goals I wanted to accomplish, and took the spot light more towards the farms/farmer, where I also worked at in the morning while working in kitchens in Europe.
Sidenote: While I had half of Sundays off and free access to a table on the slow hours (along with anything on the menu and maybe a bottle of lambrusco or prosecco on a good week) when I was in Italy, the truth is I would peddle my bike to the nona's house to eat for like 4-5 hours with a nap which had those generous portions you are mentioning.
Thanks for clearing this up because I was confused by the other comments about how multi course meals are common in Italy but unknown in the US.
So nobody in Italy is going to nonna’s house and sitting down to 10 courses of tiny amounts of pasta, proteins, vegetables, soups, and salads. They’re sitting down to one big feast with a much smaller number of dishes being passed around the table, like you’d see in The Godfather.
> So nobody in Italy is going to nonna’s house and sitting down to 10 courses of tiny amounts of pasta, proteins, vegetables, soups, and salads. They’re sitting down to one big feast with a much smaller number of dishes being passed around the table, like you’d see in The Godfather.
For the most part yeah, we ate previously opened jars of pickled veg anti-pasto, salumi and ragu while drinking non-fancy house wine, but when I was living and working with a legacy family in Maranello we'd sometimes go to Modena/Bologna/Reggio Emilia to a patrons/business partners home where expectations were different... we did a multi-course menu, but that was a business arrangement or celebration of some sort, hardly what I'd call a regular Sunday dinner.
I just liked going to the nonna's home to have whatever was made and rest for a bit and get away from work as I had already spent over 60+ hours on the farm/kitchen by weeks end.
Those days were so exhausting but incredibly fulfilling.
No way that’s 50g of carbs. They started with 150g dry pasta and the serving they plated was less than 1/5th of it. I’d be surprised if there’s 20g of carbs in that serving.
<< They keep coming up with weird “facts” (“Greek is actually a combination of four other languages) >>
Not as wrong as the author thinks. From Britannica.com:
"Greek language, Indo-European language spoken mostly in Greece. Its history can be divided into four phases: Ancient Greek, Koine, Byzantine Greek, and Modern Greek."
If I had to suggest where the “combination of four languages” idea came from, it would be from Homeric Greek (the language the Iliad and Odyssey were written down in). This was genuinely a complete mess, formed of a hodgepodge of different dialects.
From wikipedia:
“[Homeric Greek] is a literary dialect of Ancient Greek consisting mainly of an archaic form of Ionic, with some Aeolic forms, a few from Arcadocypriot, and a written form influenced by Attic.”
I’m not sure if this is a plausible explanation as I don’t have much experience using LLMs.
What happened was either the teacher is severely biased against ChatGPT and fabricated the fact to fit their narrative. Or ChatGPT gave the correct answer, but the student interpreted it wrong.
I do believe the students keep coming up with weird (correct) facts, and that this can be scary for a teacher who is stuck at a search bar.
Modules and libraries are addressable based on their names or URI:s.
"Unison eliminates name conflicts. Many dependency conflicts are caused by different versions of a library "competing" for the same names. Unison references defintions by hash, not by name, and multiple versions of the same library can be used within a project."
https://www.unison-lang.org/docs/what-problems-does-unison-s...
"Here's the big idea behind Unison, which we'll explain along with some of its benefits:
Each Unison definition is identified by a hash of its syntax tree.
Put another way, Unison code iscontent-addressed.
Here's an example, the increment function on Nat:
increment : Nat -> Nat
increment n = n + 1
While we've given this function a human-readable name (and the function Nat.+ also has a human-readable name), names are just separately stored metadata that don't affect the function's hash. The syntax tree of increment that Unison hashes looks something like:
increment = (#arg1 -> #a8s6df921a8 #arg1 1)
Unison uses 512-bit SHA3 hashes, which have unimaginably small chances of collision.
If we generated one million unique Unison definitions every second, we should expect our first hash collision after roughly 100 quadrillion years!
"
https://www.unison-lang.org/docs/the-big-idea/
Seems like identifying your library with a git tag would drop that risk to zero.
I guess what I'm not understanding here is the utility. Why is it useful to include multiple versions of a library in a project? Is this a limitation I've been coding around without knowing it?
Have you ever had problem where two of your dependencies are each using a different version of the same library? Or have you ever wanted to incrementally upgrade an API so that you don’t have to change your entire code base in one fell swoop? That is where things like Unison or scrapscript can make it very easy.
One reason for multiple versions of a library in a project is that the project wants to use 2 different dependencies, which themselves depend on incompatible versions of a third library.
I think it is something like Hoogle for haskell but instead of looking for the types of the functions you look for a hash of some kind of canonical encoding of the definition, so it is like an encoded knowledge graph but you should have to give rules in order to construct that graph in a canonical way.
Edited: What I thought was wrong, anyway the idea of above could be useful for something like copilot to complete definitions.
Content is by definition content addressable. x = 42 is a hardlink to every other instance of x = 42 if you will. What this does is more compact and practical content addressing, like Nix or Git. But realizing that there are always more than one way of expressing the same logic (with different hashes no matter how you canonicalize) makes me doubt it is a killer feature.
For what it's worth, and at the risk of sounding like I'm nitpicking, traditional Luddism is not dismissal of technology as overhyped or smoke-and-mirrors. Quite the opposite; the technology is recognized as very real and very impactful. The question instead becomes, "what happens to us, the ones it replaces?". And at least in the original incarnation, given an insufficiently satisfying answer, you smash some looms up to try and slow the encroachment of automation.
Neo-Luddism is still opposition to a lot of modern technologies, but for a very disparate set of reasons. For example, many oppose the mass adoption of social media due to perceived mental health and social impacts. Others oppose smart phones and "screen addiction." These things can qualify as "neo-luddism" even though the opposition is not rooted in job displacement.
I've often said that I am myself becoming more and more of a "neo-luddite" but it's purely for personal reasons. I don't want to see social media or smart phones disappear as I couldn't care less about what other people do with their lives. I just find that the older I get, the less I want to use modern tech in general.
It might just be burnout and boredom. I am now middle aged and I've been coding since I was 10. I used to be extremely enthusiastic about technology but as time progresses I have less and less interest in it. The industry in which I have based my entire career just doesn't excite me anymore. Today I just couldn't care less about ChatGPT / "AI" / LLMs, Bitcoin, smart phones, video games, social media, fintech etc. In my free time I find myself doing more things like reading books, going hiking in the backcountry and pursuing craft-related hobbies like performing stage magic with my wife and partner.
I thought that this was me ("The industry in which I have based my entire career just doesn't excite me anymore."), but then I realized I actually am mostly just interested in programming the way some people are interested in any other skill or machine. Some people learn guitar because they need to make music and play out. Others just love playing the guitar, even and especially when nobody is watching, for its own pleasure.
To me, there is no greater toy than a programming language. ChatGPT is neat, but it isn't a programming language. Same for blockchain or agile or whatever other trend is happening in the industry. Some of the trends literally are new programming languages! Golang is really fun! So is TypeScript!
Some trends or technologies make programming even more fun (in my opinion anyway) and I embrace those feverishly: distributed version control, CI/CD, pair programming (sometimes it's even more fun with a friend!), configurable linters like Perl::Critic, Intellisense, JUnit-style testing frameworks. All this stuff helps me feel more in control of the computer (or distributed cluster of computers), which I've discovered is the main thing that gets me off about programming.
I'm even still hopeful that LLMs will have some role to play in my having more fun with programming. I've tried CoPilot and so far it hasn't grabbed me, but maybe this will change. In any case, there are clearly other people having fun with it so I guess that's good. Maybe somebody can find joy by debugging GPT-4 prompts the same way I enjoy pouring over stack traces.
I'm a "maker." Although I try to bring a level of "craftsmanship" to my code, and I care a great deal about code quality, refactoring and solving problems at the code level - and I definitely enjoy the process - it is still a means to an end. It is the configuration of raw materials that contribute to the final form of something useful and tangible.
The most tragic part is realizing that it is very unlikely that I will ever care about what it is that I am producing in tech. I was self employed for 15 years and that was extremely rewarding because the business and the product was my vision, my creation etc. Now that I am back in the job market I find that what was a career for 20 years has become "just" a job. I am making something, and that matters, but I'm not making something I would personally use as an end-user. And that is not a slight against the things I am making. They are useful to someone. Just not to me. I have spent the last few years thinking about what it would look like to make something I myself use and that's when I realized that, relatively speaking, I hardly use any tech as an end-user in my personal life at all.
I could have written this myself. I'm currently going the scary "bootstrapped founder" route because at least the tool I'm paid to work on is something I care about and I can put a lot of my craftsmanship on.
But in general my long term goal is to go write mini Lisp interpreters in a cabin in the woods, and move away from the direction Big Tech is going.
I love computers, software, but I would not say I love technology anymore, nor I think that the Internet is a net benefit for humanity anymore. It's been quite hard to accept that my view of the tech world has turned upside down in no more than a couple years.
Though when my wife and I have talked about "going off grid" and living remote, she wanted to understand my limits and asked about electricity.
I pointed out that electricity led to the discovery of logic gates, which led to integrated programmable circuits, which led to the Von Neumann Architecture, which led to Ethernet, which led to the Internet which led to Twitter.
The demographics of this site are getting older (you can see a recent-ish poll on the site for some indication.) The same phenomenon was on Slashdot in the '00s writ large also. Lots of older disgruntled engineers who hated how the MPAA and RIAA controlled all of software, snooped everyone's packets, and how when they started in the industry in the '80s people took pride in shipping shrinkwrapped software. It's an interesting pathology but, like all pathologies, it becomes tiring on the site when people bring it up constantly.
Hype cycle topics seem to attract opinionated folks who have strong feelings on topics and have the need to shout them from the rooftops, whether that's doomer, booster, or luddite. That's what I find exhausting.
I feel the same. I don’t have the same kind of enthusiasm now as I do a kid.
I’ll also say, I think LLMs are different than bitcoin. It has its own killer app, and it has tremendous social impact, not necessarily positive. If anything, crypto doesn’t really make sense without AIs.
One thing though is that the foundational models are created and controlled by big tech. It’s been compared to silicon fabs and its scales of economy … However, I don’t see a future where foundational models can only be created by large orgs with a lot of resources is something beneficial for society.
You sound like me. Middle aged and tired of the bullshit.
The difference is I'm mostly tired of the social garbage that keeps piling up on top of things. The competitiveness, the pressure to "be productive", the grifters, the capitalists who put money before people, the bureaucrats. It's never enough more more more faster faster faster meanwhile the roadblocks that are put in place get bigger uglier and stickier than ever.
I just stopped participating in that stuff. Got off Facebook. Got off Twitter. Curated my Reddit feeds to be built around useful and helpful communities, not reactionary meme-ified BS. Started reading more. Started using RSS again (but again a reduced and focused subset of useful sites).
I'm feeling much better and I still find I enjoy technology. Microelectronics, 3d printing, functional programming, distributed systems.
I'm working on a cloud connected garage door opener. I don't care that it's never going to be productized. I don't care that I can go an Alibaba and order one for $15. I'm just doing it because I want to work on my microelectronics skills and I find it fulfilling. I'm doing it my way, at my own pace, without the BS.
If I had to pick one "beginner resource" for the absolute newbie then it's hard to beat the book "Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic." From there you can decide what interests you and thus where to go next, since magic is such a broad field.
One of the reasons I love it so much is that it is a multi-skill discipline and it's really a type of theatre so it can be kept as simple and narrow or as broad and open ended as you want it to be.
I argue that I don’t think those questions about looms have been adequately explored, and we’re still paying for that even as another wave of innovations roll in.
It’s broader than simply, that people lose jobs to automation. A much bigger societal impact comes from treating people as automatons, which is how business are incentivized to end up with non-people automations.
You forgot about the rest of us. Developers who are interested in the subject and want to read about the latest developments and techniques. We're actually interested in the computer science.
> Somehow the intersection is right: AI is not really smart, but it will replace a lot of human activity anyhow.
Which will really show how much busywork we humans do in a lot of areas. If -- before AI is "smart" -- it can impact humanity.. well, i feel it says more about our current society foundations than it does AI heh.
“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
And we thought there was an epidemic of bullshit jobs before! Not only will everyone be spending their days churning out this garbage, but everyone will be forced to read it as well!
This is not the dystopia I had in mind! It’s much more boring and missing the cool mirrored shades.
Yah. I mean, a lot of human activity in employment is not really smart.
Anything that you can make into a fairly formulaic job for someone who's not really interested in doing it or improving too much is probably not very intellectually demanding (but perhaps may be a bit demanding in world perception or actuation than current AI/robotics systems).
- The scammers - how many well-meaning people can we use an LLM to build meaningful (to them) relationships with, to the point where they're willing to just send us money?
- The griefers - how much discord can an LLM create, for the lulz?
(to be fair, those might be subsets of "realists", but I think they're important subsets)
In the circles I'm in 2019(GPT-2-era) AI was seen through the lens of the artist as a new sort of artistic tool - something that could enable new forms of expression and take media to places it had never gone before.
Sometime toward the end of the diffusion days though, the property rights scissor cut through the community. The conflict had a dramatic cooling effect on AI-created/assisted content.
I just think it's neat how the perception of AI shifts depending on proximity.
- the realists: it's just a stochastic parrot spitting regurgitated content back at you. Good at summarizing search results. Unreliable and will never be. A toy. Do not use if errors are expensive.
There's also a lot of faux-intellectual attention grifters who don't really have any beliefs other than whatever the local kool-aid is and will say whatever gets the number in the top right to go up because that makes monkey brain feel good.
These types of participants are the most easily simulated with AI because they're (whether they know it or not) just optimizing for a variable, something that existing AI tech is pretty good at so I expect their numbers to explode before the other three types you listed.
That's super cool. I hate the pricing. I typically know everything I need to for day-to-day usage of the shell and only do things that require discovery every few months. 100 queries wouldn't be enough in those months, so I'd have some months where I'm paying for nothing and the odd month where I don't get enough usage.
$9 per month also makes it costly enough that I wouldn't buy it as a "just to have" kind of tool. I don't think I'd get $100 of value vs searching online, especially since I attribute some negative value to tools that can be taken away from me. I don't want to pay forever and be dependent on something that could disappear tomorrow.
I don't get why something like that needs to be an online service. I don't know much about AI, so maybe it's a lack of understanding on my part, but why can't I simply have a copy of the trained model on my local machine where there's no ongoing cost (to you) whenever I run a command? Isn't an online API a complex solution to a problem that could be solved with a local app + data?
Maybe I just lack understanding and the models are too big or the compute required to make a query is huge. If you could give some insight I'd genuinely appreciate it.
Even though I'd never buy it as a subscription, it's the kind of thing I'd pay for as a perpetual app. I'd wouldn't hesitate to pay $50 if I could install it on my machines and forget about it until it would be useful. I'd also expect to pay for updated versions of the models whenever I need them.
Regardless, I think it's amazing as a discovery tool. I don't mind reading 'man' pages to figure out details, but I always feel like it's a hassle to discover what command I need for certain tasks.
Also, I'm probably an outlier since I make a lot of effort to avoid tools that rely on an internet connection to function. IE: I won't rely on GitHub. I'll use it, but only as a push mirror.
Your pricing is terrific. The free plan provides just enough daily queries to try it, and the monthly plan might be a good fit for a business.
I'm going to sign up for the free plan, not because I need such a tool, but rather so that my boss might see me using it and decide that it's worth $10 a month to her.
const questionCriteria = {
filter: '!-*f(6s6U8Q9b' // body_markdown and link
}
I thought maybe it is a hard-coded CSS element name in StackOverflow answers, judging by the context, but it's not that. Could you shed some light on this?
Found in the How2 source file `how2/lib/how2.js`. Thanks.*
It’s an encoded bitmask indicating which fields to include from the API. The specific layout is an opaque implementation detail; the value is typically generated by the api playground Ui
I made a terminal AI as well based on ChatGPT: https://github.com/shellfly/aoi . I intend to provide a way to run the shell command automatically which can reduce lots copy and paste.
Trump doesn't really know what he's doing. He surrounded himself with yes-men that know perfectly not to contradict him.
The global Dollar order was built to American advantage. Trump is dismantling it for no reason. If the dollar order crumbles, the US will discover it has much lower productivity.
There is no American exceptionalism: it's just Dollar exceptionalism. No Dollar, no exceptionalism.