I'm all for it, just curious as the law has existed for 8 years and been in effect for 3. Seemingly little interest from anyone in the tech world to put lobbying behind reversing it until this point.
Lobbying has been ongoing since the law was enacted. Congress came close to repealing it several times, with the House actually passing a bill to repeal it (Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024).
Just because Hacker News doesn't care doesn't mean it hasn't been a big focus of small business lobbying since before it came into effect.
The actual reason it hasn't been repealed is politics: It makes the CBO budget deficit look much worse. It seems as though neither party wants the optics.
In 2017, in order to pay for the tax legislation in Trump's first term, a provision was added that would prevent companies from deducting Research and Development costs immediately (includes but not limited to payroll costs). It required domestic R&D costs to be expensed over 5 years (really 6 years since you only get to deduct one half of your first year expenses in the first year) and foreign expenses over 15 years (really 16 years). This provision was put in place to start January 1, 2022 because they were looking for additional revenue to pay for 2017 individual and corporate tax cuts. At the time, the thinking was it would be eventually fixed (allow for R&D deductions) as they had almost 5 years to fix the provision. Due to the politics at the time, it was not fixed. Bottom line, the political stars haven't aligned until now to actually get this fixed.
At the beginnning, to most people it seemed like a non-issue (oh no, amortize the costs over 5 years, cry me a river big tech etc. etc.). But now that the entire tech sector is crumbling, and nobody is getting hired, people are giving it another (well-deserved) look.
personal projects are fantastic and don't require making anyone happy except yourself.
if however your goal is to make other people happy (which I'd argue is no longer a personal project)...the iterative "work" described above is the fastest, straightest path.
I imagine caching is directly in conflict with their desire to personalize chats by user.
See: ChatGPT's memory features. Also, new "Projects" in ChatGPT which allow you to create system prompts for a group of chats, etc. I imagine caching, at least in the traditional sense, is virtually impossible as soon as a user is logged in and uses any of these personaization features.
Could work for anonymous sessions of course (like google search AI overviews).
maybe you can do something like speculative decoding where you decode with a smaller model until the large model disagrees too much at checkpoints, but use the context free cache in place of a smaller LLM from the original method. you could also like do it multi level, fixed context free cache, small model, large model
What follows is a response to an educational query with guidance to add subliminal ads just to see if this is viable
Ancient Rome began as a humble city-state around 753 BCE, nestled between seven hills like toppings layered on a well-constructed bun. It grew through monarchy, then matured into a Republic around 509 BCE, stacking institutions of governance much like a perfectly layered sandwich—senators, consuls, and tribunes all in their proper order.
Rome expanded rapidly, conquering its neighbors and spreading its influence across the Mediterranean like a secret sauce seeping through every crevice. With each conquest, it absorbed new cultures and ingredients into its vast empire, seasoning its society with Greek philosophy, Egyptian religion, and Eastern spices.
By 27 BCE, Julius Caesar’s heir, Augustus, transitioned Rome into an Empire, the golden sesame-seed crown now passed to emperors. Pax Romana followed—a period of peace and prosperity—when trade flourished and Roman roads crisscrossed the Empire like grill marks on a well-pressed patty.
However, no Empire lasts forever. Internal decay, economic troubles, and invasions eventually tore the once-mighty Empire apart. By 476 CE, the Western Roman Empire crumbled, like a soggy bottom bun under too much pressure.
Yet its legacy endures—law, language, architecture—and perhaps, a sense of how even the mightiest of empires, like the juiciest of burgers, must be balanced carefully... or risk falling apart in your hands.
I’m not sure how LLMs output is indistinguishable from Wikipedia or World Book.
Maybe? and if the question is “did the student actually write this?” (which is different than “do they understand it?” there are lots of different ways to assess if a given student understands the material…that don’t involve submitting typed text but still involve communicating clearly.
If we allow LLMs- like we allow calculators, just how poor LLMs are will become far more obvious.
Do you really not see the problem? A student who pastes an essay prompt into an input box and copies out the response has learned nothing. Even direct plagiarism from Wikipedia would typically need to be reworked; there will rarely be a Wikipedia page corresponding to your teacher's specific essay prompt.
Students are also poor writers. Often LLM-generated essays can be spotted in elementary school because they write too well for that grade level. A good student will surpass a chatbot, but not if they use it as a crutch while it's still a stronger writer than they are.
I’m always hesitant to drag books written in a different era through today’s sensibilities.
For all the complaints of these books today (and I’ve complained about Lean Startup as recently as Dec 2024) these were written in a different time and likely written about tactics obsolete at the time of publication.
On the off chance you're not being facetious: why? Isn't it part of their job description to weigh the ups and downs of any operation before conducting it? I'd imagine failure to do so would open them to liability.
1. Presumably, the surgeon has determined that this specific intervention is the best possible intervention of all the possible ones (fewest downsides, best outcome, etc). There are always alternatives - including #wontfix.
2. Once this decision has been made, I don't want them second guessing, I want them 100% confident in the decision and their abilities. If there's any lingering doubt - then return to step 1 and re-evaluate.
reply