geremiiah

No, these are two very different objectives.

AfD also self-censors. They frame the whole anti-immigration debate as anti-Muslim/asylumseeker, but if you read between the lines they are making arguements that apply to pretty much everyone who isn't German.

So they frame the anti-immigrant debate as if they are fighting to kick out the Syrian asylum seeker who hasn't worked a day since he arrived in 2015. But in truth, they are basically saying, "we don't want too many foreigners, especially ones that don't look German". This applies to pretty much all the legal immigrants in Germany.

Presumably they only have empirical results and if so, wouldn't you need to train multiple successive models to even test such a hypothesis? Even then, it's not like an inductive proof. An improvement in one generation does not imply an improvement in the next (unless you define improvement to mean exactly that).

The problem with physics and chemistry is that you need simulations and those are often in themselves compute hungry. So the iteration loop will be slower.

Why does the article title imply that VW is going to build weapons but the second paragraph then clarifies that the plant will be sold?

Isn't that purposefully misleading?

In a world where sedans have been replaced by SUVs, I don't see how the market would react positively to this. But then again, Lime scooters are paradoxically also a thing. I guess maybe it's a matter of marketing?

Energy markets are also much easier to quantify, thus harder to build a hype machine around.

Hmm, I think you provide a compelling narrative. However I'm not very convinced.

I think AI is a good example. EU wide there are plenty of public HPC centers and in 2020 we had (relative to the world) plenty of compute. In other words, we had the tech, we had the compute, and we had the know how. And yet we don't really have a competitive AI scene in Europe. There were some very small projects launched to try to train LLMs. All of them were no more than learning exercises.

How will QC be different?

True, but what they do is they invest in fundamental research and then expect magic to happen and that research to lead to economic growth. Unfortunately the wizards that cast the spells live in the US, not Europe.

Because lots of senior researchers who call the shots are somehow invested in QC.

EU also recently introduced a 3 euro fee on all packages from China. Maybe well intentioned but it puts a huge markup, when a thinker wants to buy a very specific 0.05 euro spring from AliExpress or something along those lines.

It's an interesting topic, but the article is completely AI generated, which isn't surprising considering the startup, but still, if you don't even go over the output what's the point?

I'm usually a fan of pg, but this post is ignorant of modern AI technologies. Building an LLM from scratch is both a trivial and a useless exercise. There's probably in the range of 5000 github repos doing exactly that. What makes LLMs work is scale, and what makes engineering and training LLMs hard is also scale. And scale is not something you can achieve in your garage.

If the goal is to understand LLMs deeply, one would be better served by either joining one of the big AI companies or doing a PhD. And to be honest, I think this journey should have been started 5 years ago, because right now there's too much competition.

His ancestors murdered and stole a whole lot for him to gain that priviledge.

You are not popular enough at your work place or at least not with the right people. Change jobs and try again.

I don't either. Don't we have free market capitalism? Why don't I have a Linux phone? And why do I need to worry that my government and banking apps won't work if I get a Linux phone?

I remember in 2010, corporate propagandists were telling us that the effects of climate change won't be felt for a 100 years.

Yes and correct me if I'm wrong, but they never did deeper work on dynamics. I think that's very telling.

It's probably because they hit a dead end with their approach in terms of improvements. You can only get so far with trying to model a physical system with an insane number of degrees of freedom from simulation (and augmented) data.

Capitalism uglifying the world that tiny bit more, so long as we can squeeze some more $$$ out of poor impressionable people...

This is the kind of rational you arrive to, if you spend too much time in feminist circles and never bother to actually try to understand the other side. I can assure you that nobody thinks in terms of "controlling women".

To be fair, this is only true in western countries. It's not true, in for example Russia or China. Or to be more accurate, in Russia and China, no matter how many hundreds of billions you own, you won't be able to bend the party to your will.

One possibly positive side effect is that by sidelining the working and middle classes, the political landscape would pit the rich against the fuck-you-rich.

It would be interesting to see the class of doctors, lawyers and small business owners fighting against the class of large cap c-suite and the billionaires.

Look, I'm not even a millionaire, and I will never be a billionaire, but in an alternate reality in which I'm a centibillionaire, one of my chief aims would be to limit the political say of the electorate as much as possible, because their voting rights would be one of the biggest threats to my everything.

Moreover, everyone who gains any amount of power becomes protective of it.

That's basic human nature. As a conservative, I under this.

All the frontier labs are lobbying hard to lock down the AI market, because they see that their position at the top is temporary and that there's no secret sauce.

Here's a shower thought. BTC essential is worth $70k solely through the power of memes. Can TSLA and SPCX remain overvalued (relative to the revenue of their respective underlying assets) forever through the power of memes?

Intuitively, it seems to me that there must necessarily be some kind of upper limit, but I'm not convincing myself. These speculative assets are only attractive as long as the price keeps inflating. But that can only happen if there is more and more demand. So it's basically a bet that there is an average amount of retail investors (I assume it's mostly retail investors but I could be wrong) that consistently put a percentage of their income into these speculative assets. Can this be maintained forever?

What "charming personality", lol? Nerds always had a higher than average probability of being total assholes. That has always been my experience.

IDK about Argentina, but the US, Australia and Canada went through the whole cycle post WWII. At first they opened up their borders because they were in need of workers. However, at some point, due to various factors, including rising anti-immigration sentiments, they retightened their immigration policies again. This all happened pre-1990s. And all of those are immigration countries, unlike countries in Europe.

To me it seems like EU countries are independently embarking on the Canada-policy of importing a whole bunch of South East Asians and Latin Americans. From Hungary to Ireland, you see the same trend.

Part of it is by economic necessity. For example finding nursing staff is very challenging and you have to compete with the US and Australia and other rich countries.

But part of it doesn't make much sense. We really don't need to import any kind of engineers from outside of Europe when we have about 2,500 EU universities pumping out graduates each year.

It's basically the V8 of electric motors. Different topology results in better power to weight ratio. From the outside they look pancake shaped.