I think this is true, if you can read in the language.
Its really difficult to help someone on tech issues if their device is configured for a language you don't understand. Simply changing the language is annoying, b/c then they can't understand the workflow I'm showing them in their language.
its not though... there is literally an infinite amount of work. If humans become 10,000x more efficient, then we still have infinite amount of work to do.
Not necessarily true. There are non-human bottlenecks to productivity, like energy, land area, available raw materials, etc. You're assuming humans can find ways to meaningfully contribute that do not bump up against any of those constraints. R&D is probably the only area not bottlenecked by one of the above out of the gate, and most humans are ill suited for that line of work.
> most humans are ill suited for that line of work.
Based on what? Certainly there are humans with crippling disabilities that remove them from pretty much any kind of work, but of the "normally functioning" population?
Most lack the necessary attention directed towards R&D as they're too busy living out other lives in other jobs. If that's what you mean, that is a fair point. But if those jobs went away as suggested earlier, they'd have nothing else to do but turn their attention towards R&D. That current world model wouldn't apply anymore.
Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc. I get the argument that "the whole world would be different, so present data isn't applicable", but, if that's your argument, then it's totally unfalsifiable.
> Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc.
Right. That much was obvious. But what does that mean in more detail? If you pick a random, normally capable, person off the street and give them everything they need to become successful in R&D, what ends up happening?
> If you pick a random, normally capable, person off the street and give them everything they need to become successful in R&D, what ends up happening?
Don't we run that experiment on every moderately wealthy child on the planet? I can tell you that the hit rate there is definitely not 100%.
I don't know. You're the one who has studied the data, not me. What's the answer?
If you are asking about what I've seen anecdotally, which is all you can expect of me given that I am not the one of us who is the subject matter expert between us, all those who were moderately wealthy children that I know have grown up into having success with R&D in at least some limited capacity. They haven't all dedicated their lives to R&D, but they've had no trouble being able to invent things when the situation necessitated it.
If they had more time to dedicate their life to it, I see no reason for why that would stop. But, again, you're the expert among us here. I don't know much about it — that is why I'm asking you.
Aside, R&D fundamentally isn't guaranteed to deliver fruit, so elaborate for us on how the research you spoke of differentiates between someone who is well suited to R&D work but never strikes gold due to the nature of the beast, and someone who cannot strike gold because they are straight up incapable as a person. That might help us communicate about this more effectively.
> which is all you can expect of me given that I am not the one of us
Not sure why the snark is necessary. Its pretty easy to look up academic achievement stratified by socioeconomic status. I'm not an expert, but the line for rich kids doesn't go to 100%.
> If they had more time to dedicate their life to it, I see no reason for why that would stop.
Because not everyone is a bottomless pit of ambition. Most people, given the option, engage in leisure in their free time.
> Aside, R&D fundamentally isn't guaranteed to deliver fruit, so elaborate for us on how the research you spoke of differentiates between someone who is well suited to R&D work but never strikes gold due to the nature of the beast, and someone who cannot strike gold because they are straight up incapable as a person. That might help us communicate about this more effectively.
I'm speaking in generalities. Research is generally a race, and the smartest and hardest working generally win the race. Even if everyone's IQ and ambition shot up, there would still be a smarter and harder working subset of people.
After that last paragraph, it isn't clear to me that you disagree with my core premise of "not everyone should do research".
Not sure why you think a computer screen is giving you snark, but you do you.
> I'm not an expert
You read through all of that data and research, as told earlier, and haven't become an expert...? Yeah right. No need to be so modest with me. Be proud of your achievements!
> Its pretty easy to look up academic achievement stratified by socioeconomic status.
It may be, but no need to waste time sauntering off on another, rather uninteresting, subject. We're talking about R&D, not academic achievement. Stay focused, by friend.
> Most people, given the option, engage in leisure in their free time.
R&D is the leisure activity of many people. We'll leave your data sources to quantify exactly what that means, but it is clearly large enough to be a recognizable set of the population.
> Research is generally a race
It can be where you are trying to be first to build a moat around something that scales massively. But not all R&D scales, or even wants to scale. Despite your unquantified "generally" claim, it remains unclear if most R&D is even trying to scale. There are a lot of hobbyists out there carrying out R&D with no plans for it beyond doing something for themselves.
> there would still be a smarter and harder working subset of people.
There is seemingly no end to how much R&D is possible. I guess at some point there is a pinnacle of human achievement, but it seems highly unlikely that we'll reach that point in the next thousand years. Humans are pretty shortsighted — the people from the year 1200 would have never imagined digital computers being a thing — but when the time comes we always find something new to immerse our thoughts in.
> You read through all of that data and research, as told earlier, and haven't become an expert...? Yeah right. No need to be so modest with me. Be proud of your achievements!
Okay. You seem upset, so I'll disengage. Have a great day!
As valuable as that diversion no doubt was for you, we still haven't established from your data sources how many people are involved in R&D in a hobby/pleasure/necessity capacity and how that compares to those who have chosen to dedicate their lives towards it.
If it is not in the data, you can say so, but it becomes impossible to know how the average person performs in R&D without it. Which then returns us to the original question: "Based on what?"
Jobs functions will change over time. Not everyone will be able to do research roles, but robotics is far away from replacing human hands in any meaningful way. Humans need plumbers, home construction, healthcare professionals [0], teachers, judges, relationship driven roles (sales, account managers).
[0] - if robotics/ai can replace healthcare, healthcare costs would drop to zero...
1) Everything you've listed has finite demand, so cannot provide the 10,000x.
2) Robotics cannot drive costs to zero. Robots cost money and require maintenance.
Sure but at some point if literally everything tangible and essentially every imaginable commercial service can be done by robots and also designed by AI better than a human, humans are basically relegated to what kind of work? Something like being the exotic dancer or baby factory for a robot factory heir, or maybe a meat sacrifice on a Ukraine-esque battlefield to fight the other group of capital holders.
Thats also the reason why i still belive in "classic instruments" when configuring my trade app; the model wont give you the same entries on lets say 5 questions.
It's a very silly way of saying that the data the LLMs had access to was presented in chronological order, so that for instance, when they were trading on stocks at the start of the 8 month window, the LLMs could not just query their APIs to see the data from the end of the 8 month window.
Overall, it does sound weird. On the one hand, assuming I properly I understand what they are saying is that they removed model's ability to cheat based on their specific training. And I do get that nuance ablation is a thing, but this is not what they are discussing there. They are only removing one avenue of the model to 'cheat'. For all we know, some that data may have been part of its training set already...
- A rules engine that combines all model outputs and issues the appropriate treatments
Two Hat and Azure kinda had this, but they didn't support custom models or rules engine.
While I love the idea of redacting/auto-correcting media, e-commerce / social media companies are structurally setup against this. They'd rather stick with the status quo of rejection, than using nano-banana to remove non-compliant features (like pii) from the images.
Once, I had to anonymize student data, so we could have a prod copy on staging. So maybe there is a use-case there...
It’s been a different order of magnitude. IBM repurchased approximately half their outstanding stock. This is consistent with a low growth company that doesn’t know how to grow any more. (And isn’t bad - if you can’t produce a return on retained earnings, give them back to shareholders. Buybacks are the most efficient way to do this.)
I can’t explain why they have a PE ratio of 36 though. That’s too high for a “returning capital” mature company. Their top line revenue growth is single digit %s per year. Operating income and EBITDA are growing faster, but there’s only so much you can cut.
You may be right on the quantum computing bet, though that seems like an extraordinary valuation for a moonshot bet attached to a company that can’t commercialize innovation.
> Europeans basically keep their savings in bank savings accounts.
USA is not much different. The wealthiest 10% of the U.S. population holds the vast majority of stock market wealth. Recent data shows this group owns around 90-93% of all stocks, with the top 1% controlling about half of the total household equity.
Many people hold cash in savings to prepare buying a house, paying for a child's college and more. IMHO, there is also less short-term need to invest your money as an adult.
If you're happy with your job and don't need the extra money (or risk), then why invest in the stock market?
> If you're happy with your job and don't need the extra money (or risk), then why invest in the stock market?
Because parking money in a savings account essentially erodes its value over time due to inflation. It’s safer, sure, but it’s a safe way to be guaranteed to lose money over time.
Equity investing is essentially the only way for savings to outpace inflation.
If your money stays worth exactly the same in net present dollars, it’s effectively eroding in value compared to what you could be earning. 10-15 years is quite the long time horizon. You could easily be earning 7% real/10% actual in equity investing. Most recommendations I’ve seen discuss short term savings such as HYSAs for a house being more in the 5 year or sooner timeframe.
Frankly, investing in equities in your 20s and 30s is easily the best time to do it. You let the compounding of growth happen over the decades, not so much later in life.
I get it... but im just explaining why people are doing what they do: choosing to hold cash over higher risk investments.
Lack of education IMHO is a huge part. Crypto has way more education around how to invest than equities investment. If people are investing, many are choosing crypto.
> Frankly, investing in equities in your 20s and 30s is easily the best time to do it. You let the compounding of growth happen over the decades, not so much later in life.
I agree, but for many people in their 20s and 30s, there just isn't much cash left over to invest, especially in Europe with high taxes and mandatory social security funds and pensions.
> Lack of education IMHO is a huge part. Crypto has way more education around how to invest than equities investment. If people are investing, many are choosing crypto.
More education around investing in crypto? I think we must be exposed to some very different parts of the internet. Investing in boring index funds are very widely spread around these days. Might not be exciting, and I guess there isn’t really something to sell (unlike crypto), so perhaps that’s part of the reason.
At the end of the day, investing in an ETF for 10 years isn't going to move the needle much. but catching the right crypto wave will have a larger impact on their life.
Investing in the S&P 500 for 10 years will on-average double your money, and that’s inflation adjusted. Over 40 years, you 10x on average, again inflation adjusted.
yeah. that is my point: for many people, "double [your spare] money" means going from $1 to $2...
Tech (and finance) workers have always had a surplus of wages enabling a comfortable life and plenty left over for investment. Personally, my 'worst' year investing my wages is when I only saved 50%. Currently, I save 70% of my after-tax income. As a result, "double your money" is a very meaningful number.
But if your wages are closer to the average stagnating wage-growth that doesn't keep up with inflation, double $0 or double $1 isn't meaningful.
Yep that's pretty much it.
And in France (I believe most of rich Europe as well), there are mandatory "social contribution" on capital gains which are collected directly by the banks.
So if you don't have much money "working" for you, they will take a good part of whatever small gains you made.
So it doesn't go down, but the gains are so small it's kinda pointless.
Of course, those who can save a lot every year get compounding benefits quite fast, but is a class that is becoming more rare every year passing.
> At the end of the day, investing in an ETF for 10 years isn't going to move the needle much. but catching the right crypto wave will have a larger impact on their life.
Buying the right lotto tickets will have a larger impact too, but that’s called gambling, not investing. As someone who has just invested in ETFs, 10 years has been plenty to more than double my investment. It moves the needle substantially.
Tech (and finance) workers have always had a surplus of wages enabling a comfortable life and plenty left over for investment. Personally, my 'worst' year investing my wages is when I only saved 50%. Currently, I save 70% of my after-tax income. As a result, "double your money" is a very meaningful number.
If your income is closer to average (and stagnating inflation), there isn't much money to double.
That’s exactly the issue, there’s so many taxes and frictions that people don’t think it is worth it, and that’s one of the reasons why Europe is stagnating. Investment in business creates strong economies.
I know several people that got cleaned out in IPOs partially due to how taxes work on no-liquidity (lockout) periods. If you IPO'd at $10 ($3 goes to the tax man), and when you can finally sell it 6mo later and stock is only worth about $3, the IRS makes more money than you.
Checkout what happened at Uber [0].
My cousin at Aurora borrowed money for his tax bill on IPO. I don't know the final numbers, but I hope he at least broke even.
Its really difficult to help someone on tech issues if their device is configured for a language you don't understand. Simply changing the language is annoying, b/c then they can't understand the workflow I'm showing them in their language.
reply