must not have been clear then. what's bad about a site you can log in to and share your information so that it helps others? and provides you with information and data that allows you to make better, more well-informed decisions for you and your loved ones? that's absolutely good by any rational standard, no question about it.

I think you're well intentioned and I appreciate that, but the biggest problems with health insurance/healthcare in the US are so well entrenched I don't think it can be fixed short of tearing it down and rebuilding. My suggestion would be to reach out to a law firm you trust and go over your ideas to see if they'd be viable.

As a user, there is zero chance I'd be comfortable with uploading detailed health information about myself anywhere. That's just too sensitive and personal to share.

I'm also not convinced that such a database of information would be terribly useful, at least in the US. Although I don't know, I'm totally open to being corrected here.

What decisions would I be able to change based on it?

if technology continues to improve productivity, then the market will continue to rise accordingly.

Technology is improving productivity? We're still down half of what overall productivity was 20 years ago.

https://www.thirdway.org/report/missing-the-juice-whats-happ...

That graph is productivity growth, and it's consistently positive.

Productivity can grow without workers reaping the benefits of that growth, unfortunately. And in that case, the stock market grows even more.

Improving productivity isn’t perfectly aligned with what is good for tech stocks. Does Netflix want you to be more productive? Meta?

Google and Amazon maybe.

> Does Netflix want you to be more productive? Meta?

Yes. If you can support yourself while only working 10 hours a week then you have another 30 hours you could be spending on watching Netflix or shit posting on Facebook.

Good point. More precisely I should say does Netflix help you become more productive! They definitely want you to have more free time.

Is that why it is rising?

Its mostly hype, if AI shows real improvements, chatgpt would need to cost a lot more than $30/mo, considering it takes thousands per user per month.

Sorry, that went over my head: do you estimate ChatGPT costs thousands of dollars to operate per user?

that's a good problem to aspire toward.

i was a process engineer there in the early 2000's, they did crazy random shit then too! they had an 'internet tv' pc that was designed to play mp4's in 2001.

i worked at intel between 97 and 07. MFG was absolute king. Keeping that production line stable and active was the priority that eclipsed all. i was a process engineer, and to change a gas flow rate on some part of the process by a little bit, i'd have to design an experiment, collect data for months, work with various upstream/downstream teams, and write a change control proposal that would exceed a hundred pages of documentation. AFAIK, that production line was the most complex human process that had happened to date. It was mostly ran by 25-30 yo engineers. That in itself was a miracle.

Semiconductor manufacturing is brutal. I'm glad I no long work for 24/7 fabs & foundries.

I have similar stories where adding a standard wafer-rinse step took a year of testing, documenting, pitching to customers, etc.

i'm thankful there's work being done on improving version control. git is great but if you don't respect it, it will punish you.

any work done in this area is good work.

there is no technical reason why you couldn't unbolt openai interface and bolt in llama. Moreover, once you have this, you need only load the model into memory once. emulating different agents would be handled exclusively through the context window sizes that llm's expect. each agent would just have its own evolving context window. roundrobin the submissions. repeat

what's crazy to think about is what new things will become possible as the context window sizes creep up.

Or as the model is able to be trained (integrated with new information) on the fly, making a somewhat limitless context window

I think there are actual technical problems in doing this.

Well, cost prohibitive on big models obviously. But even just things like DreamBooth training extra associations to sets of new data images is tuning the model as you go

given all the world's pain and suffering that has been caused by the GUI, i fear AI for the first time...

My controversial opinion is that the gui was a leap back to the stoneage. Teach a person to fish? Nah, lets teach them nothing about the rod, the line, the water, the hook, or even the fish, and sell them fish sticks since they can barely handle a microwave. Abstraction is distraction.