the expectation is that we won't be prompting this models the way we do now down the road. As in: prompting is the command line of LLM, at some point we'll get the equivalent of a GUI (either because we can be clueless on how to prompt because the LLM is so good, or it's so good at eliciting your requirements, or because there is no prompt at all and you interface with the LLM completely differently)
You could foresee that under the covers there is always going to be some prompting but it's going to be performed rarely by few people?
I agree that there will be new and interesting abstractions for prompting, but I have this feeling that the promise of LLMs for the foreseeable future is to apply them to new and unique business cases. I think this will always require interacting with them at a lower level to some extent.
Same, for example Noise engineering https://noiseengineering.us has 2 lines of eurorack synthesizer modules which are each built on the same hardware and they let you swap firmwares (change your delay module firmware to the distortion module firmware, your drum synth firmware to a compression effect firmware...).
By having homosexuality violently oppressed, ostracized and ridiculed in the past, and slowly reversing that attitude towards it? People were literally criminals for loving people of the same sex...
A lot can happen in 20-40 years, and has happened in 20-40 years throughout history. Industrial Revolution, being a prime example.
We've also become far more interconnected in the last 20 years, which plays a large part - whereas before people may have kept quiet because they thought they were the odd one out they now know they aren't.
I do not agree that the industrial revolution is equivalent to changing sexuality within a society.
I could agree that modern technology and the industrial revolution are very similar. But even with that it has taken 60+yrs for our society to have a computer in the majority of homes after the Manchester Baby was created (and I think this change happened extremely quickly). And, analog and electromechanical computers go back even further. So, again, I think even these things have been a very gradual change happening over many decades once the leading technology was invented.
To further expand on my thoughts, to imply everyone was using ‘industrial revolution’ technology overnight would be heresy. I’m sure it took factories many decades to build and retrofit equipment including a technology run up to the revolution itself. With this said, you peaked my interest in this area and I have some researching to do this weekend.
The sexuality is not "changing" significantly, what changed is that it's getting less dangerous to 1. realize that you are not straight 2. not be straight 3. tell people (including polls) that you are not straight...
And if you go way back in history, homosexuality was totally accepted in places like ancient Greece. It's good that TV series show homosexuality as something normal, because it is. And if it helps to encourage more people to openly come out as either homo- or bi-sexual all the better.
> With this sentiment why is Saudi Arabia not more accepting of homosexuality then?
Because Saudi Arabia is a religiously fundamentalist theocracy and literally punishes people engaging in any activities perceived to suggest homosexuality with physical violence or death.
> Or, did their media push it down their citizens throats until accepted as is being done today.
You're using a metaphor that implies violent coersion. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "pushing it down their throats"? If you're referring to "overrepresentation"[0], can you elaborate who is doing it, why you think they're doing it (i.e. to what ultimate cause beyond "normalizing minorities") and why that is bad or objectionable?
It reads like you're trying to say a lot of things you don't want to spell out but I'm not sure what they are. Just to be sure: I'm a white European heterosexual man, you don't have to worry about offending me.
[0]: If you strictly mean demographic proportions, I guess is fair when applied to shows and films individually, though I'd like to see some numbers if you want to claim that this applies to Netflix's entire offering as a whole.
During deflation the interest rate falls to 0% which is correct but since money is going up in value, the real interest rate is still positive. This means the real interest rate doesn't actually fall to 0% meaning profit is necessary even in an economy without growth.
I suppose I was thinking the original comment referred to the concept of metaverse, not FB's product. Then my question was: do companies have to colonize something that doesn't have scarcity and fake it so that they can profit?
google "sucks" because ads. It might have other problems, but when you can buy your competitor name as a keyword ad and on mobile you need to scroll 1+1/2 screens to get to maybe the 1st organic result and the ad is barely different from the organic, you end up with a sucky search engine, no matter the algorithm.
The competitor website is not a slightly suboptimal result for the query: it's literally the wrong result if I'm not adding "alternative" to the search query. I'm sorry.
aside from the fact that as others have pointed out there is more to firefox than the engine (though I wish I could have that too) such as firefox sync and a UI that better suits my taste, it also signals interest in using a different browser which hopefully will push apple to allow full 3rd party web browsers at some point.
one would assume usps would have the best data regarding residential addresses, so I assume "where you live" is not a residential address. Part of the reason they are delivering to residential addresses (and no "to the local post office") is to limit the orders by household, and avoid scalpers reselling those tests.
Obviously ideally they should be limiting the orders by person, but without national id and with scalpers ready to make a penny wherever they can we cannot have nice things.
> I assume "where you live" is not a residential address.
It is. But there are definitely a lot of assumptions that happen. The USPS occasionally reports to HUD that my home is unoccupied because it has no mailbox, which leads HUD to report such to my bank, which makes them report to my insurance company, and then I get a call telling me they cannot insure a house that is unoccupied, and I have to explain it to them... again.
Anyway, yeah, I get the reason why they'd limit it to residential addresses. But its the "Every home in the U.S. is eligible" that is a bit of a slap in the face. Don't say it if you know it isn't true, and they know it isn't true because they address it in their FAQ.
This sounds a lot like you’ve decided personally you don’t want mail delivered to your house, not that USPS won’t deliver. USPS tries to deliver to your house and fails because you don’t have a mailbox…
That's not true. If the money is wasted, why tax at all? It seems punitive. Many that wish to see money lit on fire, rather than put to productive use.
I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options:
you say:
> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth
and then, you don't believe that works because:
> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending
So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.
Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.
I see you live in San Francisco, presumably you haven't lived there long, and presumably you've never actually talked with a homeless person or a "less wealthy" individual who would benefit from your ideas.
SF spends over a billion dollars a year on the homeless, and I have trouble finding a homeless person who receives 10 cents. The money, I'm suggesting, is almost all stolen, it ends up in salaries, pensions and political donations - with almost nothing reaching the homeless.
Collectivism is a great concept. It's academic, and you have the ability to accuse strangers of "not caring about the less wealthy". Personally, I think you are a fool who is being taken advantage of by politicians who are stealing your money to pad their pockets.
My challenge to you, is try to find some of the billion dollars SF spends each year on the homeless to reach just one individual. Just one person. Then come back and ask me for more money.
we got it, you don't like SF government. You don't have to manage tax money like SF does only because you decide not to do rich tax cuts. Again, it's a false dichotomy.
And the fact that SF government doesn't work doesn't negate that tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, so why should the 99% support these cuts if they are not going to benefit from them?
I don't want you to vote against your interests, I want all others to vote in favor of theirs (against politicians that sell the tax cuts as "trickle down economics")
I think you are economically clueless. Reading may help you.
Rather than raising taxes and cutting spending, our leaders, including Democrats and the Fed have printed enormous amounts of money to help the poor. The average American family last year received over $50,000 in COVID related support including the Child Tax Credit, expanded SNAP benefits, Unemployment insurance and ability to wave loans including student debt and mortgages.
What is the point of tax increases when we have exactly the same result printing money?
Ironically, the primary driver of inequality, that you complain about is the FED's purchases of bonds which suppresses interest rates on the long end - and holding interest rates down on the short end. This makes stocks appear to be cheap. The stock market is correlated with the FED's balance sheet. Adjusting income taxes, will do little or nothing to address wealth inequality.
Buddy, this thread is about the long running art of "vote for me, I'll cut taxes for the rich. What you say? You are not rich? No worries, the rich will make sure those cuts help you out as well" and whoever believes it. It makes no logical sense, but people believe it. The article at the top seems to point to those cuts not trickling down.
It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the CUTS. You are going to be ok, don't be scared...
I see what is happening here. I'm talking about economics and you are talking about political slogans from the 1990's. That doesn't sound very fun - its like talking with a church person. Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so. My point is, it doesn't make a difference either way. The Fed's balance sheet drives wealth inequality. Hard stop. No one is helped or hurt by cuts or increases because we simply printed the money, with no loss or gain.
If it makes no difference either way, then let's finally stop those tax cuts and prove that it doesn't make any difference! Love me some common ground.
Just one thing tho:
> Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so
ehm, nope. I don't have a slogan, I have some research (the original post https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ser... ) that contradicts the 90s slogan that still is used today to justify cutting taxes. So hopefully this and more peer reviewed studies will put the practice justified by the 90s slogan to rest.
Yeah good luck with that. The Democrats hold the House, Senate and Presidency and decided against the policy you argue for (austerity), in favor of debt monetization and liquidity. But they went even further, In the BBB bill, they favored tax cuts for the rich through bringing back the State and Local Tax deduction (SALT). I'm not sure who will enact your punitive tax increases. Any ideas? AOC and Warren represent a very small minority.
Current policy discussion doesn't change the result presented in the article, the only thing I've been discussing.
> your punitive tax increases
again, never even talked bout INCREASES, only stopping cuts. Do you know the difference between not cutting and increasing? If you do are you just trying your hand at fearmongering? Nah... you seem the kinda folk who would only argue in good faith.
Well I'm certainly for tax cuts. Especially in California - a high tax/very low service state. I mean just walk outside of your apartment dude. If you see that as a success story something is wrong with you. I'd never look at SF or California government and say "Keep doing that".
friend, are you seriously going back to the beginning of the thread and trying to say California is bad, then tax cuts are good? Are you stuck in a loop? do you need help?
In France we call the fountain pen Stylo Plume. Which literally stands for Feather Pen. And the part from which the ink flow is called the plume (feather).
In this context, “plume” would probably be translated to “quill” rather than “feather” (or “nib”, for the metal bit that touches the paper). It’s ambiguous in French, because if is the same word for the bird thing and the writing instrument.
Agreed. This comes down to lack of power to push a system onto it's potential users, mozilla didn't have a userbase large enough nor could incentivize 3rd parties to force onto their users. You could argue if the ux was good it would have just succeeded, but I think that's bs. Funds are the number one predictor of success of anything.
My worry with the blockchain is that now it has VCs that are going to pump so much funds in it to keep it spinning and force everybody to use it because you need that service, and now (in the future) it's only provided through the blockchain (because the alternative off-chain company cannot raise funds so it doesn't exist, it fails, or it's a worse experience).
You could foresee that under the covers there is always going to be some prompting but it's going to be performed rarely by few people?