>I actually found its speed to be a problem for interactive stuff, as every answer got several paragraphs I'd then wade through, vs a model populating text closer to my reading speed.
It would be interesting to pair the super fast model with a normal speed model. Have the super fast one do all the background research, code writing, etc. The normal model would just relay the needed info to you at a more reasonable pace.
Why do you even need a second model for that? There are many simpler ways to slow down the rate that the near-immediate response is pseudo-typed onto the screen.
The company I work for joined it, and I've used Claude on various different accounts, both on and off the Cyber Verification Program. As far as I can tell, it literally doesn't do anything or have a point. The moment Claude gets close to something Cybersecurity related, it drops back to 4.8.
Start with an existing open source AI pentesting / source code scanning tool. Shannon and Strix are 2 that come to mind. They provide the tools, prompt, and frameworks for the model to use.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to deceptive and journalistic malpractice. The way I read it was not that they were inflating the number of drawdowns, but rather pointing out that it was designed for full drawdowns, not rapid and repeated cycles of addition/extraction.
The problem seems to be the rate of extraction and replacement, not the total volume ever extracted. I could be reading it wrong, but that was the impression I got.
"The reserve was designed to handle five full drawdowns over its lifespan. Instead, it has undergone dozens of cycles over 40 years.
Misra told CNBC that “because the system was not designed for this many cycles, the repeated injection of water and extraction of oil have caused severe cavern deformation, accelerated the rate of massive salt falls from the ceilings, and significantly weakened the overall structural integrity of the aging reserve.”
Video games are honestly a pretty bad example. 10-20 years ago, you'd buy your video game, and it was a complete item, that you owned and could play for as long as you didn't damage it. Once you were done with it, you could lend it to friends, or sell it and recoup a decent chunk of money for the next game you wanted.
Now with everything digital only, you don't even own your games, your ability to play it is at the whims of mega-corporations. You can't resell it to recoup money, or lend it to a friend. Most games start on day 1 as essentially a beta, with tons of huge updates required to get them in a decent state, loot boxes, microtransactions, live service games taking over the entire market share, RAMmagedden driving up console prices post-launch, etc etc etc etc.
They are definitely prettier now and have fancy lighting effects though.
> Video games are honestly a pretty bad example. 10-20 years ago, you'd buy your video game, and it was a complete item, that you owned and could play for as long as you didn't damage it. Once you were done with it, you could lend it to friends, or sell it and recoup a decent chunk of money for the next game you wanted.
As I said to another commenter, that applies to many of the games I buy today. OK, not quite all since I do buy some titles digitally, but that is my choice.
> They are definitely prettier now and have fancy lighting effects though.
And are much better in terms of accessibility, quality-of-life in general, scope, etc.
No you can't. Big studios don't make games with 2006 graphics and indies don't make the games you could get in 2006 except for the smaller scale ones.
Of course games are a cop out when discussing inflation in the first place because they have zero marginal cost to produce and the market has massively expanded - if their prices had kept up with inflation something would be VERY wrong.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but neither of those outcomes sound like failures? They sound like a net positive for society. New mothers get to spend more time with their children, which has a ton of societal benefits, and teenaged boys decided to study more, and become more educated, something that also helps society out a lot. I admittedly didn't read the entire link yet, but both of those sound to me like a positive outcome of UBI, or at least neutral.
It sounds like you understood. I find the disconnect between the summary above and the quote below really funny. Almost as funny as explaining the joke here!
Really, many jokes of this nature have to be signalled out-of-band somehow due to Poe's law (particularly applicable in this case). I wouldn't be surprised if a non-negligible number of users here actually held this view (due to a variety of reasons and justifications perhaps, but nevertheless still possessing such a perspective).
Absolutely love the design, features, website, attention to detail, and just...taste. It's been quite a while since I mashed that reserve button so quickly haha. Hope it lives up to the design and looks!
Keep in mind these charts are almost useless if you're trying to determine how much the typical millennial or gen x person has compared to boomers.
I'd go as far as to say it's misleading at best to portray "The kids are alright" and that "Gen X and millennial heirs are starting from a position of strength", when the charts used to back that up are based on net worth per capita, a very poor metric to use for this. They might as well say "A small portion of the kids, that happen to be in the top ~10%, are alright".
Right, that was egregiously misleading. Well, I'm not sure how misleading it is because the average is a meaningless metric for most people's experience, so probably very.
> by our estimate the amount spent will be smaller still at $8 trillion,* because most households receiving an inheritance are already affluent and likely to save or invest much of what they receive
It's not even a "top few percent" thing. It's an exercise in creative measurement.
A large fraction of the boomers were useless hippies for many years in their 20s so they were living hand to mouth, no assets. Everyone since went to work. The boomers when they did get serious quickly could afford houses got mortgages, putting them in the red for years. Everyone since has had to wait way longer to be in the red like that. So of course when you pause and take a static measurement it looks like generations since are "doing ok" because at whatever point you measure there's more of them banking assets to get to the next step.
reply