Yes, if you see the LLM as a compressed dictionary of all available information.
But if they succeed with agentic reasoning models (we are absolutly not there yet) then I think meritocracy will be replaced with assetocracy. The better the model, the more expensive it will be and the better the software will be.
I don’t worry about it myself, but I do worry for my kids. Im not even sure what to teach them anymore to have a shot at early retirement (and they keep raising the retirement age too).
Teach them basic financial literacy. The time value of money, the power of compounding, the relationship between risk and expected returns. Grade school does not cover any of this.
It does not matter what your income is if you cannot budget and save.
Financial literacy is a red herring. If one only stores their savings in gold or an index fund, that gets them practically all the way there. It takes all of two minutes to teach it. It compounds itself.
Risk too is sort of a red herring. Just buy in whenever it dips, and you are set. Diversify just enough to dilute the aggregate risk, and it practically disappears.
Savings are not even possible with low income, only with medium to high income. The lesson to learn is to avoid wasteful excessive spending that benefits oneself only in the moment.
Yes, keep focused on the future, deny the moment. Avoid testing your own experience about what waste and excess mean. Follow the herd and treat participation algorithmically. Buy in. All key points for a satisfying life well lived.
Plenty of people have bought what they thought was the dip, only to watch an instrument go to almost zero and never recover. Look at Bed Bath and Beyond. It’s not quite that simple.
If you buy junk with all of your money, that's on you. I mentioned gold and (broad) index funds, although a few select cryptocurrencies also work. Buying junk must be restricted to a very small amounts only, to what one is willing to risk.
You can spend $100B on a assets but it doesn't mean you'll turn a profit.
Capitalism certainly favors those with the most... capital, but there are quite a few other factors. Market fit, efficiency, etc. The Dutch East India Company had the most assets, yes, but also the best ships and a killer (literally) business model.
The notion of a sector where success is determined almost entirely by who can stockpile the most assets (GPUs in this case) is a somewhat unique situation and probably merits its own term
The Budapest Memorandum (1994) gave assurances, that the U.S. would militarily intervene or defend Ukraine under attack like an alliance-treaty.
Ukraine surrendered the sharpest tool in its arsenal for those assurances, its inherited nuclear arsenal, the world’s third-largest at the time.
But the loss was broader than warheads; it was the surrender of a strategic future.
America first means America first.
All politicians will say one thing and do another, always check the incentives…
The Budapest Memorandum did no such thing. It is completely and totally incomparable to the US-Japan alliance. At most, it calls for a weaselly "security council action to provide assistance".
>Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
"Our" politicians? What makes you think I am American? Of course Switzerland is less dysfunctional than the US, that wasn't the point of discussion at all (and an extremely low bar to begin with). It was to show that direct democracy has lead to undesirable outcomes.
> Calling people too dumb to handle democracy sounds a tad facist.
Well, it's good thing I did not do that. I said the average person cannot begin to comprehend every facet of the modern world they live in. Your limited reading comprehension is not making a very compelling counterpoint here.
In my many years of living here, I have never seen a Swiss person treat their own illnesses, design their own trains, hunt their own meat, and do their own plumbing all at once – they delegate tasks they understand themselves to be incompetent in to specialists. Yet somehow, at the ballot box, their otherwise healthy and productive understanding of their own limited competence makes way for a strange form of celebratory group hubris, landing them in a constitutional crisis like a drunk driver in a ditch.
Maybe instead of trying make decisions they have no hope of truly understanding in an incredibly slow and inefficient process, they can just elect people they trust to be specialists in narrow fields to make these decisions for them for a fixed time span? Wow, exciting, we just fixed a flaw in democracy the Greeks knew about 3000 years ago by resorting to the same god damn system everyone else already uses: representative democracy. Which also sucks in its own, different ways, but at least it is much less likely to set the entire f-cking country on fire over night. That's kinda neat.
The media have been shouting the high salaries and IQ of programmers for nearly three decades, it was bound to satiate the market one day, with or without AI. Add to that the addictive nature of programming…
It’s easy to reduce it to party lines, but that kind of thinking is just wrong. Details matters.
Is there a word for reducing it to something abstract and then attacking the abstraction, even though it is leaky?
reply