Maybe it’s semantics, but generally with fund allocation when you’re deploying more than 1% of your AUM towards a single thesis that’s a significant bet.
The closest equivalent to "AUM" for a company like that would be the market capitalization, not cash reserves, so over 1.5 trillion.
Then again, shareholders usually have less risk tolerance with companies than investors with hedge funds, so the two aren't really comparable either. (But I assume your 1% number is for more risk-averse funds? Hedge funds regularly make much bigger bets than that)
Nobody bought a Tesla in the last 5 years because “I want fewer highway fatalities”, they often bought it because they thought the overhyped self driving features would let them chill out on their commute.
People want self driving cars so bad because driving everywhere sucks (and sitting on public transit sucks too). Routine travel is mundane and boring.
I will buy a Tesla because I love driving it. Yes even commute. Driving an EV makes driving so easy and fun. I had one as part of a car subscription for 5 months and I always looked forward to my commute. Even an ID5 from VW or something comparable gives you that feeling of... effortless. Can't describe it any better. Even an automatic ICE can't compare at all. Didn't care much about self driving because in Europe it lacks a lot of features compared to the US FSD from Tesla.
They take it, but are they comfortable doing so? Or just have no better alternatives?
Most women I knew in those cities preferred riding with friends or a boyfriend, some even took taxis to avoid the metros at night if they couldn’t. But that was also a crapshoot, because some taxi drivers are even worse and then you definitely won’t have anyone else around.
Most moved out of the cities entirely when they got kids for ‘safety issues’, among other things. Like the logistical nightmare that is navigating the systems with kids and all their stuff. A few stayed and got cars.
Very few systems the public seems to consider generally safe enough to send kids unattended - Zurich, Tokyo, Singapore are the only ones that occur to me.
Tokyo has a serious subway groping issue though, fwiw.
Grifters - truly, such a comforting thing to say that ensures everyone will feel the apparent warm fuzzies you seem to have?
Notably, they left me alone after some eye contact, but seemed to have no issue harassing female parisians indefinitely while the cops ignored them. None of the women seemed surprised. None of them seemed happy about it either. I didn’t see any unsolicited touching though, so that’s good!
Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage.
“The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to experience it - it’s self evident.
Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art. A silent song isn’t art. These are just childish, amateurish displays only enjoyed by a nihilistic culture devoid of meaning. If what you make only counts as art because it “starts a conversation” about how stupid and garbage and insulting it is, then it’s not art at all.
Well you seem to be confusing "what is good art" and "what is art". I vehemently disagree with saying 4:33 or the banana "isn't art", this sounds like a very narrow definition which I struggle to imagine.
I have more sympathy for the claim that it's not "good art", not particularly interesting or meaningful.
With regard to the banana I tend to agree. This was just a small provocating artpiece which doesn't bring anything to the table and is unlikely to be discussed much in ten years, let alone 70.
4:33 however is still very much discussed 70 years later and will continue to be, and that may be because it's not just a random joke but fits within the work of an important composer (John Cage) which contributed significantly to the artistic debate of what "is" music, at a time where this question was suddenly much less clear than it had been in the past (i.e. the same piece today would be much less meaningful).
While acknowledging that the question "what is art?" is an interminable quagmire, I'll say that art is any artifact that induces an emotion.
If an artist paints a wall white, and that doesn't induce any emotion, then it's not art.
If an artist paints a wall white and then tells you "hey, this is art", and that induces anger or frustration in you because you disagree, then it becomes art.
When the person above implies that this "makes you ask questions", the question in this case is "what is art?", which, as mentioned, is a contentious and interminable topic which itself arouses emotion, making it good fodder as a topic for art.
> Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”?
We did. By making it relevant here.
> Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art
The one thing baser than taping a banana to a wall is people categorically, doubtlessly concluding that it is or isn’t art.
It isn’t art for you. That this point needs to be made almost singularly means that I do consider it art, if only on the first iteration. (Anyone could have done it. But Cattelan did.) I’ll sidestep the question, too, of whether any comedy is art.
Unless we’re elevating art to a Kantian ideal like math, or arguing it’s subject to the scientific method, art has to be subjectively judged. If that’s true, anyone drawing hard lines is bloviating or attempting coercion.
Because even customers don’t always know what they want. A lot of customers want peace of mind when they’re buying a product, and you can’t always build up that trust in a single call, so a white lie that gets them as a customers as long as you can fully deliver on that promise seems optimal for both parties.
Telling a customer “we don’t have that yet” knowing full well they just care if you have it, and knowing full well you can deliver it as promised, just creates unnecessary doubt that could lead to a worse situation for everyone. One where a customer passes on you because they don’t know you well enough to trust you can deliver, and you don’t get the sale because you didn’t happen to create some very simple feature before a customer demanded it. That’s a lose-lose.
This complaint just reeks of “I’ve never worked in a company or role that didn’t already have all the uncertainty figured out”. Building features nobody wants as insurance in case somebody finally asks for it is a waste of human talent.
Once you get accepted they do further diligence (that can take several weeks if you’re missing things or have been sloppy) to get it all together before they give you the money and let you do demo day.
Don’t we all known someone who is very widely read, but makes the occasional error or mistake? Gets confused about something, or is asked about a discipline they don’t understand or haven’t researched very deeply? Maybe they misremember a date here or there, but are otherwise fairly intelligent? Maybe they work a data entry job making a middle class salary.
This is basically where ChatGPT is at. It’s a very widely read person with an excellent memory and quick mind. It’s probably smarter than the average human (certainly in breadth, often in depth), not to mention a comparison of it to the average human globally.
ChatGPT is smarter than the average human already. It doesn’t need agency or a soul to do so. We already have AGI, we just keep moving the goal posts.
The architecture is not AGI. Whether AGI can be acheived within it is perhaps an open question, but that the architecture itself does not constitute AGI is pretty clear.
2. General, meaning they are able transfer knowledge to solve arbitrary problems outside of their training domain; and
3. Intelligent in the sense of being able efficiently find efficient solutions to problems which exploit structure of the problem domain.
Artificial General Intelligence: A.G.I.
If you think AGI should mean something else, then that's because the goal posts have moved since the term was defined by GOFAI AI researchers some 2 or 3 decades ago. Some people in the 90's and 00's thought that merely having an AGI system (like ChatGPT) would result in runaway self-improvement leading to god-like singular powers that take over the world. Now some people have taken "AGI" to mean this fictional (and impossible) thing. That's a confusion on their part.
In general I agree with you, but I think we need to figure out how to do really long context lengths before that's really true. A sci fi AI with a real identity would be able to relate to everything that happened in its "life", not just the last 4k tokens.
I think things like this have been tried (like shipping container homes). Problem isn’t lack of capital for a solution like this, it’s lack of demand and zoning issues.
Houses made out of dirt or cargo containers don’t appreciate all that well, so while you have a shelter over your head, you’re still just throwing money away as if you’re renting (except you also have a mortgage with a big down payment and interest).
Maybe you could address homelessness with enough of these and made cheaply enough, but it won’t affect the housing crisis so much, because people want affordable but appreciating homes. Like the desire to buy cheap stocks that go up a lot, it’s easier said than done.
The rise of the far right is in large part due to mainline society failing to "Uplifting the many men falling out of society", "Protecting children and their parental rights", and "Reversing the declining trust in institutions (media, public health, DOJ, etc)"
The Left doesn't believe these are issues, but are instead moral failings or the result of a reduction in privilege by cishet white men. Their statements to that effect have pushed ~a dozen of my friends from D to R voters.
What is incredibly well established is that g is incredibly predictive for many life outcomes from income to educational attainment to drug addiction. This is what IQ test measures.
The only thing disputed is whether g is the same thing as “intelligence”, and the only dispute there is from softer science fields because “intelligence” is a word without a precise definition and a lot of feelings and opinions wrapped up in it.
