ptmvp

I've personally liked 4.6 the best to date, preferring it by far to 4.7 and 4.8 (even with these on max effort!), both in Claude Code and for non-coding tasks in the chat UIs.

Still early but from my first few interactions with Fable on high in both settings, it feels like it might finally dethrone 4.6 for me, but time will tell.

Hoping it doesn't get nerfed and eventually comes back to the subscriptions.

Well, it is arguable that it is "laughable" that there is a strong push to try and regulate/contain these systems to avoid human extinction when they can't tell you the number of weekdays in a month (and fail in this manner).

I'm no AI skeptic (and am aware the above does not seem to apply to GPT4), but the general point stands - finding these limitations is an interesting endeavor, and when they're particularly severe or unexpected, newsworthy.

Uhm - maybe train a secondary NN that scores summaries on their factual accurateness/quality? Anything under a given threshold is either sent for manual review or re-ran through the LLM until it passes.

I think it's interesting to see the ease with which a few commenters on this thread assume they either 1) know how to answer this question or 2) are comfortable hand-waving it away.

I don't get what point you're trying to get across with this comment. The question at hand is essentially one of causality, but you seem to be avoiding it? Addressing your points one by one:

>Survivor bias. If nothing existed [1], we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Survivor bias leading to the question is not the reason anything exists, in the same way you being alive to ask this question is not the reason you're alive. In both cases existence is simply a pre-requisite to asking the question, but it does not answer it.

>It's like asking what is P(A|A).

No, that is misinterpretation of the question. The question is not "What is the probability that anything exists, given that anything exists?", it's asking "Why does anything exist?", as per the title.

>The question "Why do I not exist" has never and will never be (seriously) asked.

Haven't given much thought to this, and at face value, yes, you're right. But "seriously" is ambiguous and there are some interesting questions here regarding the possibility of an evil demon like entity, or, more interestingly, GPT-3 posing this question.

I've tried to restrict the suggestions below to sources that I perceive as fairly unbiased.

While it's not exclusively focused on the economics side of things, one recommendation I would have is to read "The World: A Brief Introduction", by Richard Haass.

On the Financial side of things, the Financial Times is probably the best publication for what you're after.

On YouTube I'd recommend tldr news for current news and Caspian Report for geopolitics.

Same thing happened to me. I contacted support and they confirmed my account had been deleted, but I'm still uneasy..

Unproductive bit is true mostly due to the low value added nature of most jobs.

The lazy thing is a tired, prejudiced, stereotype. Unless you also consider countries like Japan who work similar (but less) annual hours to be 'lazy'.[0]

[0]https://data.oecd.org/chart/6wmc

This comment is not only based on anedotical evidence, but demonstrably wrong [0] (compare hours worked between Portugal and the UK - these are significantly higher in Portugal) and perpetuating stereotypes with regards to Southern European countries.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_annual_labor...

Just a layman's guess here, but I strongly doubt the bystander effect is strong enough to overcome the chances of a single person helping. Note that for the bystander effect to happen, all the people in the vicinity have to not intervene, while for it to be defeated, it takes a single individual to act.

I doubt that as N increases the "network" effects are strong enough to overcome the chance that someone that will help, regardless of what the effect of "N-1" bystanders is, shows up.

It's an interesting thought but I think there's little basis to believe there is a concerted effort here, as the average consumer is very aware that the quality of, say, a screwdriver from China, is very different from that of a German made one.

I think it's just an unintended consequence of a race to the bottom in cheap, disposable manufacturing. Even then, I'm unsure if on an aggregate level the progress in materials engineering and overall manufacturing processes does not eventually offset this focus on cheapness, resulting on better value than the more expensive alternative.

One thing I noted was that the median price paid by foreign buyers was not as high as I expected when compared to the median price for all buyers (280.6k compared to 259.6k).

This indicates to me that these foreign buyers are not necessarily institutional investors or companies, but foreign citizens, so the segment of the market they're in is probably not the multi-million property segment, but the more "standard" residential properties market a normal US resident would be in. The article does somewhat confirm this:

>"Foreign buyers include those living in the U.S. and overseas, but the majority (60%) were recent immigrants and foreigners who live in the U.S. for work, school or other reasons."

If you also take into account that there is an effect of the purchases made by these buyers on the "median price for all buyers" cited above (and so the real difference in median prices between foreign/domestic buyers is higher than what is suggested by those figures), I think the effect is somewhat diminished (as this pushes them into a more "upscale" market).

Even with the above, I still think it's relatively safe to assume this will have a downwards impact on US residential prices, at least in these states (but I'd need precise figures as to what share of homebuyers are foreign).

*edited the last paragraphs to correct something I had gotten mixed-up on

I agree it is more complicated than what I outlined above, but I do think the aggregate welfare lost from the detriment in service quality of car-hailing multiplied by the number of potential consumers hurt represents a bigger loss than any gain cab-drivers could obtain with this measure.

I find the measure exactly the wrong type of regulation, the one that hurts a large segment of society to protect a small group (which had already benefited from a decades-long state imposed monopoly and became stagnant and comformist as a result).

As a small disclaimer, I do admit I have a bias against cab-drivers in general, but I do not think it clouds my judgement in this case.

It is rational from a self-serving standpoint from the taxist point of reference. The rational is to hurt Uber and consumers and by doing so giving Taxis an advantage (ie, they can now reach you faster than a Uber).

It is a huge loss if you look at it from a societal welfare point of view.