A_D_E_P_T
> https://www.whattoexpect.com/baby-names/list/top-baby-names-...
Mateo aside, the top 20 could have been pulled from 1840. Tradition still reigns, and Victorian-era names for boys are the rule rather than the exception.
Names that end with -er are in general quite rare, though it's true that Archer is in the top 100, and Gunner is somewhere around #500.
Given that LLMs are practically commodities and open models are a dime a dozen, this is pure insanity. There's no way there from here.
> https://bullfincher.io/companies/amazoncom/revenue-by-segmen...
Well over 60% of their revenue is B2C, strictly defined.
The scientific field doesn't have that many open problems -- whether P=NP is the greatest and most famous -- and they're set to fall like dominoes. A condition where CS is "solved" and has no major open problems is a very real near-term possibility, and probably a medium-term inevitability.
Though software engineering is a fundamentally different discipline, none of this implies that software development isn't in trouble. Human planners and software architects might remain, but very soon LLMs are going to write virtually all code.
The contrast with math and CS couldn't be starker, really. Everything that hinges on formal logic or logical relations is done for.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_c...
Then advances in algorithmic efficacy will be the province of machines, who will act in ways and at speeds that are beyond human.
What room, then, for CS students?
I wonder if biology and theology are picking up students. Those fields, I'd bet, won't be solved within our lifetimes.
Also, this would imply that people who work in glass and zeolite production/processing would be more at risk, which I don't believe is the case, so it's unlikely that this hypothesis holds up.
4-Carbon is, per benchmarks, said to be superior to Opus 5.5 at coding.
At general tasks -- search, medical, interfacing with maps and mail, planning, etc. -- the Google models are already superior.
Think about it. Google's latest Gemini AI is just behind Anthropic's best offering -- or, in fact, it may be slightly superior. Google also has dozens of other mature, cash-cow businesses, massive infrastructure, their own hardware accelerators, an army of smart technical staff... and leadership that, for all its faults, isn't a literal cult.
Anthropic has a top-tier LLM among other top-tier LLMs. Claude is great, but not unique. Anthropic has effectively no other assets, many genuine liabilities, a downright bizarre wet-lab venture, and leadership that's... well...
So, the way I see it, either Google is massively undervalued, or Anthropic's IPO is massively overvalued. Am I somehow off base here?
There are no good elements for D; Dysprosium is the only one, and it's a mouthful. There are no good elements for E; Europium is the only one and would seem political. Is Fluorine their next release? (And then Gallium or Gadolinium?)
After Carbon, they should just update to Gemini 4.1 or 4.5 or whatever, and drop the random unrelated elements.
> So, imagine my disappointment when I walked up to my first haunted attraction of the year and was immediately greeted by low‑quality AI art. One of the images was so bad that it even included the Gemini diamond in the lower‑right corner of the page.
The image in question is a sign or menu, the sort of thing that's usually neither good nor bad. Here it's exceptionally bad because it "included the Gemini diamond." In other words, it's exceptionally bad because it's AI, and for no other reason.
At this point, I don't know if it has much to do with quality...
Maybe with a couple hundred more years of technological development...
Our moon itself is said to have ~1M tons of very valuable Helium-3 in surface deposits, but even that's nigh impossible to harvest commercially right now.
It's not quite like Uber. It's more like... well... imagine there are two computer operating systems, Gray and Teal. Gray is always slightly better, but it costs $50/user/month for a license. Teal is free. Eventually, when both happen to be in version 9.0, Teal puts Gray out of business. Starting from version 10.0, Teal starts charging $100/user/month from a license. But nothing's stopping you from sticking with 9.0, which remains free forever.
Perhaps what's "sustainable" is not clear, given that Gray was eventually dominated by Teal? In any case, versions 1.0-9.0 were, effectively, gifted to the public. We can appreciate (and even disapprove of) that commercial strategy while benefitting from its fruits.
Seems more economic than technical. If the economics are covered, the technical aspects seem straightforward enough, and may perhaps be fully solved. I think there's proof of this in that there are a lot of different LLMs on the market. Even Xiaomi -- in-between making cars, e-scooters, backpacks, and home appliances -- spun-up an exceptionally capable LLM! (And one which is rather idiosyncratic. It's weirdly good at music composition and generation, which both Opus and Astra cannot do.)
The economic case doesn't exist for VC-funded US corporations, nor does it exist for cash-strapped nonprofits. In China, all such ventures are likely funded by a government development bureau. If Chinese ventures kill expensive closed providers and universally go closed themselves, there's nothing stopping the US or Europe from copying that same playbook -- unless, as may well be the case, they're ideologically opposed to subsidizing strategic industries.
What makes you think there would be no alternatives, though?
Put it like this: Kimi K3.1 is downloadable and can be run locally. (If you have a datacenter.) This is a very capable, ~2.8T parameter model.
Now let's say that every Chinese firm goes closed in six months or a year and jacks up pricing... What's stopping a bunch of enterprising upstarts from updating all 2.8 trillion parameters, extending them, distilling the model into very competent flash models, or applying targeted RL?
Once the principles are understood and there are models that can be pulled off the open internet, it doesn't seem that hard to spin up your own LLM. You just need some financial resources and a reason for doing it. And that would come into play if the Chinese kill every closed American provider and then go closed themselves.
At this point, I don't see how Anthropic can sustain their projections. There are so many good open models, Argon is so good, etc... There's no lock-in and no cost to switching...
> people will simply buy less cheap 差不多 shit from china that goes straight to landfills because it doesn't work or doesn't last.
This take is out of date by about 15 years, I think.
The way I see it: Health insurance is actually getting more expensive. Tariffs are making imports more expensive. (Which also makes domestic production more expensive.) The Iran "conflict" was retarded. TFA wasn't really wrong about that stuff. It's obvious.
Edited to add: You edited your post after I published my response. My original comment, which is that you weren't making much sense, is rescinded. Only now what you've written amounts to: "it's not Trump's fault and the outlet is crooked!" which is really just lol. lmao even.
Also, it would really be best if there were a "general use" API key already assigned, so that 1-2 searches could be run without logging-in and without a key. Most people aren't even going to try this thing, otherwise, despite the fact that it's a cool idea.
I'm going to ask you a genuine, non-rhetorical question: When was the last time this was the case? Athens, and not for long? Surely not Republican Rome, any other period in Rome's history, Feudal Europe to the 20th C., dynastic or warlord-ruled Asia, or the United States of America, though perhaps it came close for a brief period in the 18th century.
It's certainly not the case now. Feudalism is the form of government that is most natural to man, just as it is most natural to bees and ants. An LVT would be a step in the direction of feudalism again, with professional politicians and bureaucrats as the tyrants who know that they de facto own all of the land, and can charge whatever rents they like.
...And, again, without recourse. Nobody has to gamble or buy a yacht. But whether renter or owner, everybody needs a house to live in. Everybody would have to pay the LVT, one way or another, no matter how rich or how poor.
For the average landowner, the LVT is actually a sort of tax on sober industriousness or fortunate inheritance, the very opposite of a vice tax.
Most of these people are middle class, many are cash-poor.
Property developers are a stark minority, you know...
You and I can theorize how black market analogs might somehow exist, but they wouldn't have 1% of the reach they currently enjoy.
I also think that conspicuous consumption in the form of yachts and $40,000 handbags is, in truth, a vice -- and one that can generate a lot of tax revenue, and only be black-marketed away with severe difficulty.
In fact, it would tax the industrious poor with little recourse.
Vices, on the other hand, don't have to be engaged in, and should absolutely be discouraged.
Wouldn't a better solution be to more heavily tax voluntary vices? Gambling, drugs, prediction markets, cash-sink "luxury" products, parasitic mobile games, etc.? I think it's fine by just about everybody if those particular industries -- the real "bad capitalism" -- become almost unprofitable by default.
The secondary layer of "bad capitalism" is in finance, speculation, and even legal services. There's no reason that those, also, cannot be much more heavily taxed.
At the same time, do the extremely smart thing that Asian economies -- China and Korea foremost among them -- have been practicing: Subsidize technical and industrial innovation, strategic industries, etc. Just cut the red tape and fund it.