Agree but topping out is similar to saying that the slope changes. Maybe after hitting 75k, it takes another $400k to make an appreciable difference.
It may take a another $40mm to make a difference at $750k (100x for a 10x change)
The pro is that chatGPT would probably quickly surface many okrs the user would not have thought of, and could answer questions about the pros and cons. It could also answer questions about how many wild be suitable and sub okr that may feed into the main okr and so forth
That could just be part of the secular trend of re-assessing the records of "conquerors" across the world. Some people consider Napoleon, Alexander and so on to be glorified warlords who happened to win but are essentially mass murderers like non-western conquerors (Attila the Hun and so on).
The issue I have here is that it’s not clear how to identify the mini games to improve.
This is an article of where blind spots might be but not about how to find them.
One of the suggestions is to find a coach — for instance online videos (not exactly a live coach) — but if you don’t know the mini games you should want to improve , how do you know which coach/video to invest in?
Yeah but it seems strange: make a law that you cannot speak against the government and of course we politely obey and keep quiet. Ask us to remove something and we will debate it, fight it and expose it.
I think the second approach is right even if the request were “innocuous”.
The myth of the myth of the myth of the 10x programmers.
This is just argument by assertion. You would still hope someone would demonstrate the existence of 10x programmers. A lot of these one-off anecdotes in the comments are closer to 1.3x to be honest.
"Every damn body" knows this in retrospect. At the time -- when we were washing our groceries and we weren't sure if the IFR was 1% or 10%, and if it was airborne or if it was morphing into something worse -- our new reality might have been very different.
LeCun, 2022: Today's AI approaches will never lead to true intelligence (reported in the headline, not a verbatim quote); Marcus, 2018: “deep learning must be supplemented by other techniques if we are to reach artificial general intelligence.”
How can that be something that LeCun did not give Marcus credit for? It is borderline self evident, and people have been saying similar things since neural networks were invented. This would only be news if LeCun had said that "neural nets are all you need" (literally, not as a reference to the title of the transformers paper).
And furthermore, if LeCun had said that, there are literally dozens of people who have also said that you need to combine the approaches.
He cites a single line:'LeCun spent part of his career bashing symbols; his collaborator Geoff Hinton even more so, Their jointly written 2015 review of deep learning ends by saying that they “new paradigms are needed to replace rule-based manipulation of symbolic expressions.”'
Well, sure because symbol processing alone is not the answer either. We need to replace it with some hybrid. How is this a contradiction?
To summarize: people have been looking for a productive way to combine symbolic and statistical systems -- there are in fact many such systems proposed with varying degrees of success. LeCun agrees with this approach (no one has anything to lose by endorsing adding things to any model), but Marcus insists he came up with it and he should be cited.