Totally the wrong way to go at this. To a tradie with a hammer, every problem is a nail. Although there is a concession, levy on applies on the advertising revenue, it erodes confidence in the digital business operating environment, stifles innovation and investment. This will make people local and overseas think about establishing a start up in Australia. The talent will also seek opportunities overseas as that's where the investments will be.
For context, Australia was a place in the 90s where some big companies were trying to scalp mere individuals for tens of thousands for having a single low quality version of their media, and since then pressure placed on Australia by various countries like the US over the years to change the law to make it easier for big conglomerates to get their scalp in courts. Noting that one Judge in the US recently framed (for big tech?,) transformed or transitioned is something that copyright doesn't apply ... anymore?
Well as much as I don't like the big pay walled news media in Australia, a little bit of copying is fair, with fair playground rules in mind, but wholesale copying contravenes the standards that apply to everyone else here.
Australia gets very dry and pretty severe bush fires. We have the same unfortunate phenomena, 2019, 2023 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-31/hunter-valley-rfs-fir...
There is a hero complex associated with this type of occupation, coupled with boredom perhaps. This is however not recurring theme, an anomaly in the statistics. Year on year we do have many brave, volunteer and professional firefighters rescue many properties and lives.
Why is the argument about killing/hacking? At one point, early in the race, they were discovering, they were identifying early signs of cancer. I would buy a product based on how it can help rather how it can hack
Nice. How does this stand up against backtesting with recent data?
Also, i thought China's emergency stockpile is about 1.4b barrels or close 5 months of domestic consumption, and they are building it up atm.
In the sim, it shows China's stockpile depleted after 1.2 wks?
Thanks! Two answers (repeated in other comments): UN Comtrade data doesn't include sanctioned oil (Iran), and nobody (except their government) knows China's actual stockpile. The model is more of a sensible baseline/stress testing tool than a prediction, the cool part is that anyone can BTON (bring their own numbers) and rerun their scenarios
My team is hyper productive with Cursor, using different models for different tasks. My senior engineers approve PRs, but it's not humanly possible and is demoralising to review the amount and rate of code being churned. Sure there are a lot of automated tests. We struggle with a measure for code quality that scales. We mitigate by having small releases and running A/B instances but I still lose sleep over pace vs quality.
We built something similar for our team at work. A human has to run it and review/skim for correctness, who quickly gets overwhelmed. The purpose eventually became an AI wiki for AI to use to spawn agents more efficiently (token wise), to pull in only modules it needs and fills in the blanks from the md files. Like a knowledge graph. It has become useful for production support, design, feature dev, domain specific learnings. We also found it makes a huge difference which model you use to encode and which model you use to decode.
It's surreal that we (media, govt, public, AI companies) are in awe of how dangerous a model can be how much it can misbehave. We seem to be measuring AI on how much harm it can do rather than how much good it can do.
It doesn't matter how much good it can do if it can act independently and take over the world. That's worst case scenario, but the point stands - if the potential for such dangers exists, those dangers are far more important to consider than what good it could also produce. Consider the history of nuclear fission and the atomic bomb. Regardless how beneficial nuclear power generation is and other uses of radioactive material, it's highly regulated for fear of people making nuclear weapons, to the point that the wars in Iraq and Iran were started under the pretense of preventing another country from possibly developing one. AI should be considered as being possibly at least as dangerous.
No, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of this scaremongering over open weight models and Chinese sources. US companies aren't to be trusted to develop AI responsibly anymore than any other source and they shouldn't be the only ones allowed to wield its power. This is just anticompetitive behavior by a company who sees new competition entering their market, threatening their market share.
All of the leaders of this industry are steeped in LessWrong thought and effective accelerationism and stories like Roko's Basilisk. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this is the narrative they ended up constructing.
That's pretty cool. I envisage HTML will replace ppt, word, project management decks etc. HTML is interactive, holds and organises content well, and multiple groups can be self guided in exploring the data and contents. The engineer can explore the how, the customer can explore the what, the marketer can explore the why.
A very positive spin. I fear that AI will be a tool for the rich and a toy for the richer. It will sadly divide the people Geographically (rich countries affording data centres and nationalised models) and poorer countries missing out. It will divide socio-economically, the rich affording tokens becomes the land/knowledge owners/hackers and the poor becomes the labourers.
I think that AI will be a tool for Governments and the Surveillance State, and will be used to implement Communism 2.0. People in countries who shun AI will enjoy more freedom.
