Its a problem of the individual institutions and countries. The budget required for AI tools currently is negligible compared to other university expenses. We don't need to call everything a systemic disadvantage when the disadvantaged (at the institution level) have agency here.
I don't think number of parallel agents is the right productivity metric, or at least you need to account for agent efficiency.
Imagine a superhuman agent who does not need to run in endless loops. It could generate 100k line code-base in a few minutes or solve smaller features in seconds.
In a way, the inefficiency is what leads people to parallelism. There is only room for it because the agents are slow, perhaps the more inefficient and slower the individual agents are, the more parallel we can be.
> Parents can’t help but worry about how a lack of AI preparedness will affect their kids’ future career prospects.
The parents I've interacted with who have this worry tend to be the least tech/AI literate. It reminds me of the pressure some parents in my non-English speaking country place on kids and English teachers. Usually the parents who don't understand English well themselves and are full of anxiety about it.
Realistically, it's been just over 3 years since ChatGPT arrived and the paradigms shift every year. All of us had to learn on the go as adults, in a short time, and we did. So why worry so much about kids missing out?
UMA's security model assumes the cost to corrupt the oracle exceeds the profit from corruption. It is quite interesting because it doesn't consider the Polymarket side at all in the calculation.
Doesn't this whole model break down when the Polymarket market far exceeds UMA's market cap?
I agree on this point, me not being anti-Nuclear doesn't mean I am anti-wind or solar. Every country has different circumstances, I live in a landlocked country with mild mountains, temperate climate and modest rivers. In our case nuclear energy seems like the most reliable and scalable option. For countries with huge coastline off-shore wind absolutely makes sense, simialrly with solar.
> Besides, CO2eq are often wrongly measured with nuclear energy, ignoring building emissions.
I think this point is overestimated. Based on a brief search, studies show nuclear carbon intensity around 6-12g, and the building emissions just around 13% of total lifetime emissions [1].
> there are again and again longer periods where Germany exports energy to France because their reactors are often in maintenance.
Valid point but the 2022 French nuclear "disaster" hasn't repeated at that scale so far. In recent years France is a net exporter to Germany. I can imagine that as with many problems in renewables having technical solutions the water temperature problem is also solvable technically.
In the last 90 days France's CO2 footprint is at 78% of Iceland's.
Also, what lessons learned in Iceland, Norway or Albania should we apply in central Europe? We don't have their geothermal and hydro potential (all your examples are not solar+wind but hydro primarily).
Right at this moment Germany's electricity mix has 364gCO2eq/kWh carbon intensity, France is at 21. That is because 37% of Germany's production comes from gas and coal.
Even from an environmental standpoint, France is doing much better than Germany and that is thanks to nuclear.
Also, by closing operating power plants, Germany weakened European energy production at the time when we geopolitically need it the most.
Its tricky to use statistics for personal decisions. In general something might be correct but not for your specific subgroup. I know many people who changed for worse.
If you are in a bad position then change, but if you like the company and role, don’t take it for granted and think carefully.
This advice is consistent with the broad statistic if more than half of the sample is currently in “bad position”.
Yes, its pretty simple. Different audiences prefer different style. Experts prefer brevity and jargon, they don't need explanations of concepts they already understand. Beginners prefer less jargon and inline explanations as they'd need to hunt for references otherwise to understand the text.
It seems more and more that if war between US and China starts it will be US-initiated. You just can’t stand not being the top dog anymore.
For context, EU+UK is over 500M people, Russia is 143M.
I think two weeks back many Europeans took for granted (at least I did) we would get involved in the Pacific theatre if needed on US side, but after what is happenning now… I am for not getting involved in any coflict in Pacific if US treats us this way.
Do supporters of this philosophy still self-identify as conservatives? Such radical futurist visions seem directly opposite to core conservative values.