Everyone knows Greenland is the real proponent of the Mercator projection. Using the unfair influence of their massive perceived size on the map to unfairly inflate their importance in global politics and economics. It's time to put Greenland back in its place.
I am now wondering if Trump's Greenland obsession is because he thinks it's very bigly, due to Mercator (it appears larger than the US in a Mercator projection).
I don't really gender LLMs in my head in general. I guess Gemma is a female name. I only gendered it in the joke because I think it makes it funnier, especially since it's just "a little guy". I know they are giving gendered names to these models now but I think it's a bit weird to gender when interacting with them.
The only problem I have with articles like this is that it frames what Trump is doing with an air of intention. Most readers will obviously think that becoming mercantilist is a bad idea. However, readers will also walk away with the notion that these actions have all been done with the a grand plan in mind.
The reality is much more stupid though. Recent policies have been made without any plan to begin with. There is no driving philosophy of "we must create modern mercantilism" and the resulting policies being a coherent plan to bring about that change. Instead actions are being made based on the split second decision making of a moron would lacks the most basic understanding of economics much less mercantilism.
This is a decidedly worse world than one in which the plan is simply a bad one. A bad plan would at least be coherent and something that our allies could predict and make their own plans around. Nevertheless, I think the thesis is broadly correct as being the outcome of recent actions.
I don't think they're gracing him with an air of intention. I think they're just looking at what he's doing and finding the closest model that makes reasonably accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think so. Recent actions are not delivering an industrial policy, or promoting research. They are not addressing the distribution of "wealth and power" which is possibly more important than its magnitude.
True. And in a few years we'll find out how much Trump has actually affected the nation's trajectory. His trade policy is an absolute 180 from GOP orthodoxy and members of his own party have mostly said "we'll do what the president wants" and not "we think this is a great idea". I'd wager a lot of this policy gets undone at the first opportunity.
If it won't happen during these 3.5 years, it won't happen for decades. Do you really except this Grand Old Pedophile party to cede power willingly, now that they own all four branches of government?
The trend of the US pulling out of the "global order" has already been happening. It's just that Trump is taking something that was happening gradually, and through his policy button-mashing, accelerated it much faster
I take a strange comfort in still spotting AI typos. Makes it obvious their shiny new "toy" isn't ready to replace professionals.
They talk about using this to help families facing a cancer diagnosis -- literal life or death! -- and we're supposed to trust a machine that can't even spot a few simple typos? Ha.
The lack of human proofreading says more about their values than their capabilities. They don't want oversight -- especially not from human professionals.
Cynically, the AI is ready to replace professionals, in areas where the stakeholders don't care too much. They can offer the services cheaper, and this is all that matters to their customers. Were it not so, companies like Tata won't have any customers. The phenomenon of "cheap Chinese junk" would not exist, because no retailer would order to produce it.
So, brace yourselves, we'll see more of this in production :(
Well, the world will split into those who care, and fields where precision is crucial, and the rest. Occasional mistakes are tolerable but systematic bullshit is a bit too much for me.
This separation (always a spectrum, not a split) already exists for a long time. Bouts of systemic bullshit occur every now and then, known as "bubbles" (as in dotcom bubble, mortgage bubble, etc) or "crises" (such as "reproducibility crisis", etc). Smaller waves rise and fall all the time, in the form of various scams (from the ancient tulip mania to Ponzi to Madoff to ICOs, etc).
It seems like large amounts of people, including people at high-up positions, tend to believe bullshit, as long as it makes them feel comfortable. This leads to various irrational business fashions and technological fads, to say nothing of political movements.
So yes, another wave of fashion, another miracle that works "as everybody knows" would fit right in. It's sad because bubbles inevitably burst, and that may slow down or even destroy some of the good parts, the real advances that ML is bringing.
Well the sun didn't make those elements. Some other star did so they aren't solar. Also by that logic everything that is not a hydrogen atom would be "solar" so I don't think we can stretch the analogy.
Helium and Lithium were also created in the pre stellar era of the universe, hydrogen was the majority by far but not the only element that wasn't created in stars. I think anything past 3 on the periodic table is exclusively stellar though.
> "meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit."
Holy corporate jargon batman! I love seeing example of phrases like this out in the wild. Stating this implies that minimizing risks and maximizing benefit is not a need of most customers? IMO, it's better not to say stuff like that at all. It's basically a meaningless phrase, it adds no information to the sentence. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's generally a sign that they are doing the opposite of whatever the phrase means.
Corporate equivalent of acting like a douchebag who constantly makes up imaginary stories about how cool they are to distract from them being a complete loser.
> Stating this implies that minimizing risks and maximizing benefit is not a need of most customers?
It’s not, at least for nuclear power. In Europe, for example, the debate is entirely emotional. So saying they’re working for a rational customer is sort of meaningful, even if corporate speakified.
> Stating this implies that minimizing risks and maximizing benefit is not a need of most customers?
I believe this should have meaning. It would mean risk mitigation is a primary objective of the company. And not every company decides to consider risk mitigation as a primary objective.
The problem is that risk mitigation is a long term objective. Who has time for that?
>> "meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit."
> I love seeing example of phrases like this out in the wild
I can image that's the stuff kids would say when asked why is the candy bowl suddenly empty: "Well, you see, we were was just meeting our needs while mitigating risk and maximizing benefit".
> Stating this implies that minimizing risks and maximizing benefit is not a need of most customers?
Honestly, I'd rather them explicitly commit to minimizing risks than say, "We're going to address the needs of our customers, and that probably includes minimizing risks, at least in most cases, right? Product will let us know when they've done the research."
It's better that they say these things than that they don't say them. The real problem is not that they say them, but that we can't be confident they'll live up to them.
'We at the Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy and NIKIET feel that the RBMK reactor design meets our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit.'
But the model doesn't have an internal state, it just has the tokens, which means it must encode it's reasoning into the output tokens. So it is a reasonable take to think that CoT was them showing their work.
These trends wouldn't be trends if they didn't work. The game can be awful and distracting, yet still succeed at garnering engagement. Not just in spite of the stimulation but partially due to the stimulation. It's not self defeating or hypocritical, it's a bad thing, an indictment, and also engaging all at the same time.
It got me to think and engage, so already I think it succeeds at being a great piece of art.
But is "overstimulation" ... "bad", according to the overall message? Is this game, livestreamer Ludwig, and all the achievements part of the problem being highlighted? (Not to mention the mean-spirited Mindspace parody) If you get enough stimulation here, it just seems like you get to cash it in so that you can advance to a state of higher enlightenment
> But is "overstimulation" ... "bad", according to the overall message?
Dozens of DVD signs jumping around, hydraulic press slowly pressing macaroons, infinite subway surfers, lofi girl, some guy eating burger, achievements popping left and right, hands molding some crap. All of that fit on a mobile screen with sounds of lofi, rain, thunder and constant clocking of dvd sounds. And I didn’t even reach bottom of the pit.
> But is "overstimulation" ... "bad", according to the overall message?
This is a common phenomenon for most things because the people in the lowest intake category of a thing are normally there for a very specific reason.
For example, people who don't drink any alcohol are more likely to die than people who drink a little bit. Why? Because people who don't drink at all tend to be those with liver damage or former alcoholics who have already done permanent damage.
I suspect a similar explanation here. People who avoid added sugar probably have other health complications going on that force them into the lowest intake category.
