I understand the point you're trying to make, but this entire thread misses the forest for the trees. Rules & regulations don't exist to create equality or fairness, it's to foster competition. We don't watch competitions for how equal and fair they are. By separating competition by gender, we have increased the opportunities to witness competitiveness. How, going forward, can we maximize that metric? That will be the future of sport.
Might it be overly generous to attribute these outcomes to recent actions by people in these instituions vs. the USD still being the world reserve currency?
Something something 100 monkeys with a typewriter? I'm expecting some margin of error introduced into these models that produces a surreal fever dream era of AI generated content on the internet.
I'm worried less about the lettuce (which we have little control over) and more about what's sprayed on the lettuce (which we do have control over). It seems like man-made chemicals added to food have a significantly higher probability of harming humans than digging something straight out of the ground and eating it, even if it's GMO.
I have no idea how these things work, but what struck me is the "restrictive" tone in the EU ("We couldn't find an adequate study proving or disproving, therefore we assume it's dangerous until proven otherwise") vs. what I view as a "permissive" view in the US ("We couldn't find an adequate study proving or disproving, therefore we assume it's safe until proven otherwise").
When it comes to things I put in my body, I would personally prefer the EU approach.
Let's assume that GPT eliminates an entire field of experts, runs out of training data, and whoever is at the helm of that GPT program decides that it's lucrative enough to obtain more/better data. One alternative is subsidizing these experts to do this type of work and plug it directly into the model. I don't expect the nature of the work to change, more likely it's the signature on the check and the availability of the datasets.
Presumably this problem is solved with technology improvements or the need is recognized to hire experts capable of generating high quality training material. In either situation, there's going to be extreme discomfort.
This is a very xenophobic view on immigration, and arguably the status quo. Past performance does not equate to future results, but I think you can draw the conclusion that the immense diversity that exists in the US compared to "rest of world" is a competitive advantage. What would it mean to lean in?
Or we could reduce the hoops & cycle time for legal immigration. The US has an opportunity right now to cement itself as the leader in technology for the next 2-3 decades and stave off the impending population growth crisis if we could find a way to enable people who want to live here to live here.
Exactly. More ICE cars are coming standard with turbochargers which would enable more to take advantage of the extra octane, but it's an optimization problem with constraints: fuel efficiency, reliability, drive-ability, emissions to name a few.