But the effect is to make success more dependent on networks. (If they are using AI as an excuse to make networks more relevant than skills, it relieves competitive pressure.)
First, a main draw of law journals is the filing cabinet of past exams as remembered by past students, available only to journal members i.e., friends of connected people. Reducing one's ability to remember what was in a lecture only increases the advantage insiders have.
Second, the "Socratic" Method for teaching law is nothing like it is in philosophy; it's more of a weird combination of hide-the-ball and distraction that again ensures people who can see through the clouds are using out-of-band information, and share it only with those they seek to enlist or join.
> all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting
I'm surprised anyone could get through otherwise. When did it become legitimate to dump your paper and not answer for it?
Homer, or the Homeric tradition, arose as rootless people displaced by drought and war in ~1,000 BC needed to sell the idea that entertaining stranger guests who had only stories from afar was worth doing, and that they shared common gods (versus the city-specific gods of earlier). This mind-set supported looser city-state alliances and cultures open to trading and ideas, who then outgrew the more xenophobic cities (like the Etruscans). So they semi-accidentally created a legitimizing belief system and thereby stumbled into founder roles.
America as the land of opportunity has flourished by acquiring more land and capturing value better, mainly by diminishing obligations to country and god and fellow humans. Yes, many writers bore witness to the frictions this involved with varying degrees of acuity or tragi-comedy, but no American writer wrote in a way that actually established this American mindset.
I think instead the mindset is perpetuated by each era building achievement heroes, stimulating belief in unbounded personal possibility. American literature is reduced to pointing out the vacuous consequences. As William Carlos-Williams wrote looking into his mirror in middle age, "I am lonely, lonely. I was born to be lonely, I am best so! [...] Who shall say I am not the happy genius of my household?"
If I had a vote, I'd nominate Willa Cather as the writer who portrayed that knowing moment of the powerless, non-achieving people enthralled with the beauty of nature as it was being destroyed. It's not what guides Americans prospectively, but it might best reflect history's perspective and our own retrospectives.
(I should add that I'm glad America has hoisted individuals and done so much to lift the global standards of living and care, even if it was more by greed and necessity than charity.)
No. If Apple did that without a basis in their own App Store policies, they'd spawn antitrust cases. OpenAI damages are a droplet compared to the App Store revenues.
> It's insane to cross Apple
... on the question of employee confidentiality. Because the IP landscape is so muddled, they try hard to keep employees happy (most don't leave), and they're very, very good at writing, securing, and enforcing confidentiality agreements.
motivated reasoning: study in advance of nursing union contract negotiations
The sad thing is that there are many issues, but the study didn't really address them. One would hope for more effective critics.
The AI application I'd like to see would be to identify the elective hyper-utilizers (so we could try to demotivate them by addressing what's really bothering them). That would improve quality of care for them and quality of life for providers, and create time for outreach to the under-utilizers who need preventative care.
Note that the objection is as much to the abruptness as the scale of the price increase.
Large customers sinking millions into (here aviation) assets rightly expect that their vendors respect their market lifecycles.
Starlink's behavior creates a credibility gap that could drive such customers to the 2-3 upcoming competitors with poorer service and even higher costs, but perhaps more reliability as partners.
Loved it. I would change the timer from text (which I'm constantly reading as it changes) to a progress bar or set of dots which don't require thinking. Also I would use 3 strikes instead of one you're out, because a single miss isn't really representative. (similarly, any valid word should work.) Letter display order can offer clues but seems random. Perhaps vowels on top row, then consonants on bottom, in alphabetic order? Would love a hard mode for multi-lingual (latin-text) speakers to use multiple languages.
"Fair use" was always fuzzy. To be honest, I care a lot less about slurping up the public internet and private books to make models than about every profession on the planet being forced by their employers to create skills that automate their knowledge work. The latter is much more directly an expropriation, legitimized only by the shortage of work, i.e., market power.
As prior art, see also djot (~2023), from the pandoc folks: carefully crafted as more well-formed than markdown. Notwithstanding the provenance and engineering, it had minimal uptake.
Paper title: Disinhibitory signaling enables flexible coding of top-down information in cortical networks
(should be qualified as in-silico visual systems)
Method: replicate fMRI findings of visual abstraction using simple networks to model what's essential
Gist: in tasks 'Inhibitory neurons that suppress other inhibitory neurons seem to pass key information from the “thinking” part of the system to the “sensing” component of the system'
I've heard the same for motor control: it's not that the cortex aims for one action; it aims for a bunch, but most are inhibited. (You see this in chaotic movement when inhibition fails).
So it's not really "think and see" but "what you see when you're doing a task".
(There's some analogy in there wrt (AI) exuberance effacing selectivity in investment decisions...)
This has a lot of potential; true disruption can happen for existing markets only when the transaction cost features change, and CloudFlare is ideally positioned to drive a new standard. Ideally they create a service that can be open and replicated in competition (not just technically but economically), and this creates the right incentives for bots and sites/services.
I dislike stablecoins because they legitimize their cousin coins and because (I think?) they have transaction fees that create the wrong incentives for providers. I'm not sure what the real benefit is over prepaid (policy-driven) fiat currency with (possibly-paid) transaction records.
I can see how selling to bots could become so profitable that no one bothers to present directly to humans, but I look forward to an ad-free, much more capable internet, where paywalls are more like a headwind than a wall.
I like this distinction, but it reminds me to cherish the people who don't require such confidence games.
Feynman has a famous anecdote about sitting around the table with senior scientists in contentious argument where he was perplexed because it was obvious to him who was right. They argued all sides, and ultimately agreed, having proofed the idea and its alternatives.
That's who I want on my team: people who can shake things out without needing to be right or needing others to be humble, and without playing games. After viability, that's my primary criterion for a position.
Apple open-sourced their container tooling and they also support Linux in their Virtualization framework. Anyone can run any compatible Linux now in a VM, with bare-metal speed but limited to virtio devices. To me it's baffling that more people don't run Linux this way.
At Javasoft there were Solaris test machines that had been up for 2+ years, and we had to reboot the windows test machines multiple times a day. It felt really good to leave a large queue of work at the end of the day on the Solaris/Sparc machines, knowing it would be done the next morning.
Great tip, but I didn't see "natural log" specifically. Perhaps "Compounded rate of change" is most applicable? That's still mostly above 0 historically, indicating margin usage is ever-increasing. The helpful graph would be margin usage as a weighted percentage of market participation.
But the effect is to make success more dependent on networks. (If they are using AI as an excuse to make networks more relevant than skills, it relieves competitive pressure.)
First, a main draw of law journals is the filing cabinet of past exams as remembered by past students, available only to journal members i.e., friends of connected people. Reducing one's ability to remember what was in a lecture only increases the advantage insiders have.
Second, the "Socratic" Method for teaching law is nothing like it is in philosophy; it's more of a weird combination of hide-the-ball and distraction that again ensures people who can see through the clouds are using out-of-band information, and share it only with those they seek to enlist or join.
> all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting
I'm surprised anyone could get through otherwise. When did it become legitimate to dump your paper and not answer for it?