That's so interesting- I'd assumed from the name that it was a charity for allocating donations, but legally it's a regular company?
Seems like its activities are mostly charity based at least.
It's a confusing thing, and I still don't really understand what 99% of wealth over the course of a lifetime actually means in real terms. Is that of lifetime wealth? 99% of Zuck's wealth from 2015 over the course of his life?
Yep. All are valid questions. I would rather have Zuckerberg donate to charitable causes than not. But this kind of bullshit indicates me that it's mainly for show.
"Do not charge your brother interest on money, food, or any other type of loan. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not your brother." - Deuteronomy 23:19-20
> Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I don't think there's anything that can't be attributed to stupidity, so the statement is pointless. Besides, it doesn't really matter naming an action stupidity, when the consequences are indistinguishable from that of malice.
I know of one datacenter that burned down because someone took a dump before leaving for the day, the toilet overflowed, then flooded the basement, and eventually started an electrical fire.
I'm not sure you could realistically explain that as anything. Sometimes ... shit happens.
I mean, I don't disagree that "gross negligence" is a thing. But that's still very different from outright malice. Intent matters. The legal system also makes such a distinction. Punishments differ. If you're a prosecutor, you can't just make the argument that "this negligence is indistinguishable from malice, therefore punish like malice was involved".
That's a gross misrepresentation of reality. It gives the false impression that gold prices always increase, which is not the case. Gold is a volatile asset, i.e., it's a relatively risky investment.
It took 8 years for gold to recover from circa 2012 drop. 8 years is twice as long as S&P 500 took to recover from 2008 financial crisis. More importantly, see the 1980 high. It took 26 years to get back to the same point. Anyone considering investment should adjust their expectations accordingly.
“I'm eating fewer calories yet keep putting on weight.”
There's a reason self-reported measures are questioned: they have been wildly off in different domains. Objectively verifying that a car is faster than walking is easy. When it's not easy to objectively prove something, then there are a lot that could go wrong, including the disagreements on the definition of what's being measured.
You're talking about cases where the measured productivity gains were marginal. Claiming my individual productivity gains are imaginary is simply absurd. I know I am more productive and it's a fact.
Again, people who were already highly productive without AI won't understand how profound the increase is.
Well said, people keep acting like one study that has issues can be quoted at me and it somehow erases the fact that I’ve seen simply undeniable productivity gains, drives me mad. I get the feeling no measurement system would satiate them anyway as their intent is to undermine you because emotionally they’re not ready to accept the usefulness of LLMs.
If I showed them time gains, they’d just say “well you don’t know how much tech debt you’re creating”, they’d find a weasel way to ignore any methodology we used.
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be conveniently ignoring all but that one study that is skeptical of productivity gains.
I understand that you would prefer to be more “productive” with AI but without any sales than be less productive without AI but with sales.
To clarify, people critical of the “productivity increase” argument question whether the productivity is of the useful kind or of the increased useless output kind.
> if everything aligns then there are superhuman productivity gains.
This is a truism and, I believe, is at the core of the disagreement on how useful AI tools are. Some people keep talking about outlier success. Other people are unimpressed with the performance in ordinary tasks, which seem to take longer because of back-and-forth prompting.
I knew larry and sergei socially when they were grad students. I completely believe that when they started that was a genuine sentiment. I wonder at what point they realized personally that that was gone
Giving away to their own LLC, not to a non-profit [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative
reply