you'd better be selling the shovels people currently want.

Most of these replies are saying McKinsay doesn't really need to use an anyways because it's junk. Irrelevant.

Read this again: "Palantir and OpenAI now offer consulting-like services to help businesses implement AI models." The client doesn't care if the consultant uses AI, the client wants to tell THEM how to use AI, maybe what to do but also how to make it work.

Curiously, a company like OpenAI does have a big advantage over, say, McKinsay, in this area.

Is that "Consulting"? To me it sounds more like what Oracle has aways done (and made a lot of money doing). But I guess if it hurts traditional consulting companies then it is at least of interest to them. Getting replaced by something to which you don't have a direct competitor or expertise is always the worst. Worse than head-to-head.

Hydrogen does not make a good fuel, tor a tonne of reasons, but nitrogen fuel would be less prone to nasty reactions and fewer problems. Could N6 combustion be controlled at levels suitable for heavy road vehicles or trains?

(Electric trains have their own problems, due to the fact that the junction needs to be poor and the cost of copper is so great that lines need to use far worse conductors to reduce theft.)

I too would not say I know what he's talking about when he imagines that many will lose their homes. 40% of homeowners are mortgage-free.

I will say, though, that the industrial revolution was very effective at taking away farms that had been in families for generations. Banks wormed their way in and then foreclosed. Of course family farms are part subsistence but also businesses, with large recurring expenses which homes do not have. So I'm pretty sure he's wrong. Not sure if I can be certain. Perhaps it could happen over many years - generational change.

What I think is more likely is that millennials will take over from boomers sometime fairly soon, and things will go left. Like Black Lives Matter and Metoo and gay rights have been, but amplified by having a lot more political power and wealth.

"Trump fires lead official on economic data as tariffs cause market drop"

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fartic...

Here's the wikipedia page on N6: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

I can't vouch for it, but at the moment nobody has updated it with the news and it is stated to be "hypothetical." Woohoo! First time I ever beat wikipedia to the punch on anything!

AI already have lots of "ethics" built into their system prompts, and guardrail mechanisms. It's unclear to me how a new "guilt simulation" would be better or even different than this.

you can't go to church, but you can go to a black lives matter protest

That is unjust and was stricken down by a court, and DC paid $220,000 in legal fees. DC dropped the quota on outdoor church meetings, joining 42 states that placed no numerical cap on them.

Not defending that discrepancy, but that it was remedied is part of the story.

If AI is used, the search tool to show "dangerously wrong" in its answers.

But it costs 100x as much, if not more. Running an LLM can be done on a notebook these days. But training one requires an entire data center of expensive GPUs. Not to mention that the notebook will run a reduced (quantized) version. Go check huggingface how large the full models are.

And also, LLMs are still suffering from a number of issues. For example, on many non-trivial tasks, the LLM is still unable to follow simple instructions. If you use LLMs routinely, you likely found cases where it has zeroed in on one - wrong - answer and no amount of prompting can convince it to give you a different one. It'll even totally ignore very clear and explicit prompts to not give that same answer again.

A human will understand "if you give that answer again, you're fired". An LLM... well you can tell it that it'll get shot between the eyes if it repeats that once more and it'll tell you where to get help if you have suicidal thoughts.

These things are both amazing and amazingly dumb at the same time.

Since we're not taking about infinitesimals, I fail to see the relevance.

Ironically I am probably contributing to all three since I game on Windows, Mac and Steam Deck.

Masking is something I have never understood the level of resistance to. It was known from early on that kids themselves were rarely dying of covid, and, in my memory, mostly presented as a precaution for older people including their teachers and relatives. What's wrong with that? What's the harm?

Closing schools is an interesting matter for a different reason. It had never been done before, so the effects (especially social) were unknown and were risky, and in the end it had a detrimental effect on the kids, which is a bad thing. I acknowledge that. But by itself that doesn't answer what I consider the overall question - how many deaths of old people are worth trading for the incremental social and intellectual advantages to the children? Essentially one group's welfare is to some degree sacrificed for another group (it's inherently not an individual decision whether to close schools), and the quantities being exchanged are apples vs oranges (elderly survival vs childhood social engagement which is no small thing) both to a very uncertain degree. That makes it a very hard problem, which to me argues against the vitriol which is inherently motivated by the assumption that one side was "obviously" right all along but the other side didn't care.

My overall sense is that if (when) another pandemic strikes, we'll probably do jack squat and let our medical "system" try to deal with the consequences.

I'd guess this study was mostly motivated by COVID. From beginning to end, the public just failed to cope with policymaking on limited information, because it is subject to revision or occasionally even reversal. Change is perceived as a scandal that must have been motivated as lies, and a conspiracy.

I guess decision-making at large scale is inherently politics, and I am reminded of what we have learned about making public apologies in recent years - it never works. It works better to make a clear and simple policy, motivated by a simplistic justification, and never change your message or alter your course or apologize, almost regardless of how wrong you are.

If necessary you can shift your actual policies, but you need to do it by simply contracting yourself but not acknowledging it, and then denying it and saying why things are totally different now if called on it, or maybe just making no defense and instead counter-attacking. A lot of people just seem incapable of recognizing culpability if you don't express guilt, or inconsistency unless you acknowledge it.

Yes they are doing layoffs where I work and up to 6 months for 25 years of service, or proportionally less for less service, is the incentive to volunteer. And I thought that was tempting. A flat 6 months seems quite good. Still, sucks to lose a job, unless I suppose you find another even better one within 6 months.