Surely one can find ways to fight the irrational, inconsequential leftists (which there are many) without bullying institutions by cutting their funding, or kidnapping people in broad daylight in the street?
i'm looking for people to support me building this for other "open-source IDEs" as i alone would not be able to do that, because it's totally free and open source and i want it to stay like that.
open source is built upon communities supporting each other and that is what i'm aiming for. hope you understand :)
Novelty in one medium arises from novelty in others, shifts to the external environment.
We got brass bands with brass instruments, synth music from synths.
We know therefore, necessarily, that they can be nothing novel from an LLM -- it has no live access to novel developments in the broader environment. If synths were invented after its training, it could never produce synth music (and so on).
The claim here is trivially falsifiable, and so obviously so that credulous fans of this technology bake it in to their misunderstanding of novelty itself: have an LLM produce content on developments which had yet to take place at the time of its training. It obviously cannot do this.
Yet an artist which paints with a new kind of black pigment can, trivially so.
A lot of people don't have internal monologues. But chain of thought is about expanding capacity by externalising what you're understood so far so you can work on ideas that exceeds what you're capable of getting in one go.
That people seem to think it reflects internal state is a problem, because we have no reason to think that even with internal monologue that the internal monologue accurately reflects our internal thought processes fuly.
There are some famous experiments with patients whose brainstem have been severed. Because the brain halves control different parts of the body, you can use this to "trick" on half of the brain into thinking that "the brain" has made a decision about something, such as choosing an object - while the researchers change the object. The "tricked" half of the brain will happily explain why "it" chose the object in question, expanding on thought processes that never happened.
In other words, our own verbalisation of our thought processes is woefully unreliable. It represents an idea of our thought processes that may or may not have any relation to the real ones at all, but that we have no basis for assuming is correct.
(Funny story, I seem to have a bout of visual migraine at the moment and misread your comment until just now and had to remove what I wrote).
I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm putting down Zig. It's more that I've noticed that people tend to frame problems differently with Zig than with Odin.
To explain what I mean by framing, consider OO vs procedural and the way OO will frame the problem as objects with behaviour that interact, and procedural will frame the problem as functions being invoked mutating data.
The difference isn't at all that stark between Odin and Zig, but it's present nonetheless. And clearly Zig is doing something which a lot of people like enjoy. It's just that the person using Zig seems to enjoy different aspects of programming (and it seems to me be in the spirit of "the challenge of finding an optimal solution") than the person using Odin.
When you see the damages 13 first-gen Caesars and a couple of month of training did to Russian artillery, you wonder what 90 of updated ones can do with people who operated them for 5 years. The Russian can't fight the EU in the air, and even if S400 and S800 were as good as advertised and managed an air interdiction area, Excalibur missiles are a thing.
In those good old times both Oxygen and XML Spy were good enough, so I even purchased a license of Oxygen for myself and never felt the money were wasted.
>And some developers didn't understand the format and shoved stuff into attributes that should've been elements and vice versa.
This happened at such scale where we can say that it was UX problem of XML itself.
We ARE hired to write code, but it's our job to know how to write less of it.
Sometimes I go into the weeds and create a monstrocity bowl of spaghetti around a feature. Then I pull back, simplify it, and get amazed at how I missed that.
The trick is to STOP and think. Not everything is a "needful".
The physical phone is a "good" that is exported from china. But the majority of the value for an iPhone is in the "services" rendered to that phone, which may be sold/exported from the US but can likely be shifted to other countries in order to avoided taxation/tariffs.
Not only China but let us assume iPhones are made in China only.
China gets a modest share of the profits, because Apple pockets the rest. Reinvesting a fraction in US and stashing most of the profits in banks across the world that use this money as leverage to buy US bonds, among other things.
Apple has internal transfer pricing which is dictated by accounting regulations and tax law.
Companies try and set transfer prices to minimize local taxes, but need to follow regulations.
A phone made in China is “purchased” by say Apple Canada for some fraction the price it sells for - regulation usually require the Value to reflect the cost of inputs.
So Apple Canada might purchase a phone from Apple China for $600 CAD then turn around and sell it for $1200 CAD in Canada.
It’s the $600 that counts as a Chinese export to Canada.
Trade deficit is a blunt and ineffective way to model international trade on this level, but it is easy to point at and say "look at this large bad number!" which is exactly what is going on. People are primed to interact with that through social media, etc.
The American trend currently is that any trade deficit is bad. It simply isnt. It is idiotic to state so.
The whole point of unequal import and export is that every single country should not strive for importing as much as it exports across all sectors. It is extremely inefficient for every country to specialize in everything equally. What then is the point of international trade? I produce steel, you produce tractors, your neighbor produces wheat. We have mutual dependence across our specializations in the market.
What is missing from the debate is that import/export equilibrium should be achieved on a global level, not on a national level. This is taking something that is a healthy driver for international trade and framing it as if trade partners are forcing others to sell out cheaply.
They aren't. They have found their niche. Find yours or step back.
What the US has traditionally done is make these countries then take Dollar loans from the IMF and World Bank to buy American defense and high tech products. When they naturally then default (right now there are more than 50 countries that cant pay back these dollar loans cause where the fuck are they going to get dollars from) their only option is to sell off their natural resources to Wall St/build a US mil base/hand over port etc.
This game has been going on so long (google super imperialism) the US with 5% of the worlds population has accumulated more than 50% of the worlds market cap value.
So the US starts overdosing on leisure/luxury and pace of innovation starts slowing cause they dont even need to be innovative. Try to build a ship in the US and its not possible anymore cause the experience is all gone. There is no great magic solution. When you talk about British history look at the 60s and 70s. There was major turmoil economically and socially post the Ww2 rebuild cause the entire system dependent on colonies had to restructure itself.
> If you show the model values for y, but they are 2 in 99% of all cases, it’s likely going to yield 2 when asked about the value of y
That's not overfitting. That's either just correct or underfitting (if we say it's never returning anything but 2)!
Overfitting is where the model matches the training data too closely and has inferred a complex relationship using too many variables where there is really just noise.
Don't worry, that's the kind of thing that would only happen in a country with a fickle, mercurial government that doesn't value certainty and the rule of law.
> Why is Denmark so high up for example, generally considered the country in the world with the highest tax pressure, and without any substantial natural resources.
It isn't the country with the highest tax pressure, e.g. Denmark government revenue is 36% of GDP, approximately equal to the UK, vs. 44% for France or 48% for Greece:
But the major source of variance in the numbers is that it not only matters what the tax rate is, it also matters how effectively you spend the money.
Suppose a government with the level of competence of Denmark would have an optimal tax rate of 20%, i.e. that's the point at which the low-hanging fruit is gone and additional spending starts to become net negative. That doesn't mean it's enormously net negative, when the government is more competent and efficient than average the loss could be small, so that Denmark at 36% might still only be slightly worse than breakeven compared to the lower tax rate.
Meanwhile a different government has the 20% tax rate, but three quarters of the money is lost to corruption or incompetence instead of funding the beneficial programs it should have been, so they could be worse off because high levels of corruption and waste can be as bad as high taxes.
The worst case is, of course, when you do both and have a high tax rate which goes to a government with a high level of corruption, which is what you see in e.g. Greece. But this is also what tends to happen in any place with a less efficient government that tries to solve it by raising taxes. The inefficiency that was the cause of the problem to begin with then gets more money to set on fire and that makes it even worse.
It's such madness that all this resource usage is for LLMs that are barely useful (at least for me). So many billions in resources wasted for machine learning systems that mimic human speech, it's not intelligent in any sense.
Now we see models showing the user it's "thinking" as some sort of intelligent agent, when really, ploys like that is to prop up the AI sector's stock price.
Surely LLMs in this form can't be the future of AGI?
With books it's even worse. Movies might get a trickle of revenue from TV licensing but once a book is out of print (which usually happens very quickly, and most never go into print again), that's it. No more revenue from that book, it continues to circulate in libraries and used bookstores but the author and publisher gets nothing from that.
