We have writing, artifacts and objects from ancient peoples which we then use to try to construct historiographies of those cultures, as well as interpretations of their lived experience and circumstances.
This is just doing it for specific historical figures with a different type of technology. Why is it more disrespectful than what historians do?
Does anyone use LLMs in such a manner that they believe it always has the most up to date information (without web search tools?).
Isn't this whole thesis negated by the fact that tool calling web search exists? This just feels like a whole lot of words to say, don't treat a LLM as an always up to date infallible statistical predictor.
Realistically I think it will come down to the aggrieved counterparties here. Who was on the losing side of the money, was it Joe Schmoe day trader or a bunch of funds who lost their shirt?
If it’s the hedge funds or institutional money, you can absolutely be sure this will come to a head. People don’t like being taken for a ride, and if they are repeatedly taken for a ride and they are organized market participants they will come around and make sure there is a comeuppance as a collective
Fair point, but the IRGC telling ships to turn around, as opposed to the ships themselves doing it (as per reporting) would imply that the Strait has been blockaded in some fashion. It remains to be seen if this is all a bluff, I'm just as skeptical as this would be their last option, but given the strikes on other Gulf countries, the threat seems a bit more plausible of actually being real.
There is credible reporting (Reuters etc.) that ships are being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been deployed. Either way, as long as the threat of sinking is alive the strait is uninsurable and is for all practical purposes closed.
> The dark side of this same coin is when teams try to rely on the AI to write the real code, too, and then blame the AI when something goes wrong. You have to draw a very clear line between AI-driven prototyping and developer-driven code that developers must own. I think this article misses the mark on that by framing everything as a decision to DIY or delegate to AI. The real AI-assisted successes I see have developers driving with AI as an assistant on the side, not the other way around. I could see how an MBA class could come to believe that AI is going to do the jobs instead of developers, though, as it's easy to look at these rapid LLM prototypes and think that production ready code is just a few prompts away.
This is what's missing in most teams. There's a bright line between throwaway almost fully vibe-coded, cursorily architected features on a product and designing a scalable production-ready product and building it. I don't need a mental model of how to build a prototype, I absolutely need one for something I'm putting in production that is expected to scale, and where failures are acceptable but failure modes need to be known.
Almost everyone misses this in going the whole AI hog, or in going the no-AI hog.
Once I build a good mental model of how my service should work and design it properly, all the scaffolding is much easier to outsource, and that's a speed up but I still own the code because I know what everything does and my changes to the product are well thought out. For throw-away prototypes its 5x this output because the hard part of actually thinking the problem through doesn't really matter its just about getting everyone to agree on one direction of output.
But the world is not deterministic, inherently so. We know it's probabilistic at least at small enough scales. Most hidden variable theories have been disproven, and to the best of our current understanding the laws of the physical universe are probabsilitic in nature (i.e the Standard Model). So while we can probably come up with a very good probabilistic model of things that can happen, there is no perfect prediction, or rather, there cannot be
Dummit and Foote is the classic abstract Algebra textbook to learn about how to precisely define these. Its treatment of ring theory is very well motivated and easy to grasp
I don't think anyone is advocating for incentivizing forced/child labour.
Given that the ILAB link you posted itself is maintained by EO 13126 signed by the Clinton Administration, I think there can be nuance in the discussion around whether or not the blanket application of certain foreign policy instruments is the right way to induce a change in the domestic policy of another country to solve the problem of bad labour practices.
We can do this without it becoming an argument about whether trade is "good" or "bad" depending on what "side" you are on.
This difference in emotional reaction is because of the effort involved in the process. Functionally, we see YouTube video creation as a fundamentally difficult exercise (to do well) and results in a singular product (one video). Any additional content would need an ongoing investment of time and money from the creator. The LLMs though would not require an ongoing investment beyond the first training run, that is probably why you have a problem with it, they're an extremely high leverage way of taking advantage of content.
The difference is though there isn't a whole lot of "whole cloth novel solutions" being written in software today so much as a "write me this CRUD app to do ABC" which current generations are exceedingly good at.
There are probably 10% of truly novel problems out there, the rest are just already solved problems with slightly different constraints of resources ($), quality (read: reliability) and time. If LLMs get good enough at generating a field of solutions that minimize those three for any given problem, it will naturally tend to change the nature of most software being written today.
I'd like to see the diets in the study that are specified as the "calorie-reduced diets". (Can't seem to find the paper). If it's the same as the Standard American Diet, this muscle loss is quite explainable. I think the mitigation is relatively easy though, if you want to shift the p-ratio, recommending a daily high protein shake would do a lot to stave off muscle loss (and even more if resistance training is applied of course). The exercise addition is probably the hardest to adhere to.
I'd suggest investing your time in the product first and converting the waitlist to real users before trying to take on external investment. It will either make it much easier or you won't need to raise depending on what happens when your product goes out to the 1000 user list.
If you train one of the larger models on these specific problems (i.e DM for D&D problems) it probably will surprise you. The larger models are great at generic text production but when fine-tuned for specific people/task emulation they're quite surprisingly good.
I'm a bit skeptical to give up conservation of energy in a system with friction. Isn't it more accurate to say that if we were to calculate every specific interaction we'd still end up having conservation of energy. Now whether or not we're dealing with a closed system etc becomes important but if we were to able to truly model the entire physical system with friction, we'd still adhere to our conservation laws.
So they are not approximations, but are just terribly difficult calculations, no?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but this should be true regardless of our philosophy of physics correct?
The conserved quantity is derived from Noether's theorem itself. One thing that is a bit hairy is that Noether's theorem only applies to a continuous, smooth (physical -> there is some wiggle room here) space.
When deriving the conservation of energy from Noether's theorem you basically say that your Lagrangian (which is just a set of equations that describes a physical system) is invariant over time. When you do that you automatically get that energy is conserved. Each invariant produces a conserved quantity as explained in parent comment when you apple a specific transformation that is supposed to not change the system (i.e remain invariant).
Now in doing this you're also invoking the principle of least action (by using Lagrangians to describe the state of a physical system) but that is a separate topic.