What about the next fab? And the fab after that? Yes, for the short term the USA has a cutting edge fab on US soil, but what about 10 years after that? The US would lack the ability to build future cutting edge fabs.
Having TSMC build a fab on US soil doesn't prevent any parallel efforts. If anything having the workforce here would make it easier to build future fabs.
I never said it did. Having a fab on US soil is important for the short term, but you need cutting edge fabs on US soil in the future too and that doesn't happen unless you are doing a lot of research.
Okay, so Taiwan is blockaded or invaded by China. The USA has a 3nm TSMC fab that they can assume control over, and, yes, they have the labor of that fab, great, but what about 2 nm? 1 nm? Etc? Without TSMCs R&D does the US have a cutting edge fab in 10 years? 20 years? Beyond? There is literally no other company in the United States that could even hope to expand their capabilities to be considered on the cutting edge within the next 15 years.
The easiest way to get TSMC's R&D in the US is to have them build a fab here and have employees here. If China invades Taiwan, and TSMC has employees that want to flee to somewhere else, the US would be the most logical option. If they already have a fab here, an established workforce and infrastructure here, that's better than having to start from nothing.
Taiwan as a country doesn't want that. There is a reason they only fab their latest and greatest chips domestically in Taiwan. It is of Taiwan's national interest and of TSMCs interest to do everything they can to ensure that the US protects them from China.
Again, it is a net positive for the US to have TSMC manufacture chips on US soil, so I am not arguing against that point, I simply posit it is not enough from a US national security / technology leadership standpoint.
>The point you're missing is it's not always right.
That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test.
They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.
Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it worked for you does not mean it works for other people.
If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.
Every time I use ChatGPT I become incredibly frustrated with how fucking awful it is. I've used it more than enough, time and time again (just try the new model, bro!), to know that I fucking hate it.
They just spent like six comments imploring you to understand that they were making a specific point: generally reliable on non-niche topics using thinking mode. And that nuance bounced off of you every single time as you keep repeating it's not perfect, dismiss those qualifications as cherry picking and repeat personal anecdotes.
I'm sorry but this is a lazy and unresponsive string of comments that's degrading the discussion.
The neat thing about HN is we can all talk about stupid shit and disagree about what matters. People keep upvoting me, so I guess my thoughts aren't unpopular and people think it's adding to the discussion.
I agree this is a stupid comment thread, we just disagree about why.
Again, they were making a specific argument with specific qualifications and you weren't addressing their point as stated. And your objections such as they are would be accounted for if you were reading carefully. You seem more to be completely missing the point than expressing a disagreement so I don't agree with your premise.
Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.
All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting.
How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?
This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.
And I think you're completely missing the point. And you say this comment thread is a waste and yet you keep replying. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think repeating yourself for a fifth time is going to achieve something?
The difference is I can name specific things that you are in fact demonstrably ignoring, and already did name them. You're saying you just have a different opinion, in an attempt to mirror the form of my criticism, but you can't articulate a comparable distinction and you're not engaging with the distinction I'm putting forward.
So your goal here is to say the same thing over and over again and hope I eventually give the affirmation you so desperately need? You've already declared that you're right multiple times. Nobody cares but you.
My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed.
You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.
As I've said many times before, I am aware of everything you have said. I just don't care. You seem to be really upset that someone on the internet disagrees with you. And from my perspective, you are the one that has no self-awareness and is completely missing the point. You don't even understand the conversation we're having and yet you're constantly condescending.
I'm sure if you keep repeating yourself though I'll change my mind.
Simianwords said: "use GPT 5 with thinking and search disabled and get it to give you inaccurate facts for non niche, non deep topics" and noted that mistakes were possible, but rare.
JustExAWS replied with an example of getting Python code wrong and suggested it was a counter example. Simianwords correctly noted that their comment originally said thinking mode for factual answers on non-niche topics and posted a link that got the python answer right with thinking enabled.
That's when you entered, suggesting that Simian was "missing" the point that GPT (not distinguishing thinking or regular mode), was "not always right". But they had already acknowledged multiple times that it was not always right. They said the accuracy was "high enough", noted that LLMs get coding wrong, and reiterating that their challenge was specifically about thinking mode.
You, again without acknowledging the criteria they had noted previously, insisted this was cherry picking, missing the point that they were actually being consistent from the beginning, inviting anyone to give an example showing otherwise. At no point between then and here have you demonstrated an awareness of this criteria despite your protestations to the contrary.
Instead of paying attention to any of the details you're insulting me and retreating into irritated resentment.
You keep insisting that you understand, but the upshot of understanding would have been acknowledging the specifics which you haven't done despite clearly having plenty of time and energy to reply.
Instead you've tried everything from saying I need to "get a sense of humor", to character attacks, to insisting without specific explanation that I "don't understand", to declaring that you "don't care", to declaring that no amount of information will make you acknowledge the inaccuracy of your own comments.
So you haven't succeeded in changing the subject of the conversation, except in the sense of turning it into a tutorial about why you can't make wrong into right with character attacks or declarations about how much you don't care.
You realize you're an enormously privileged, wealthy individual telling other people that don't have your wealth and privilege how they should feel the same as you? You don't even say "in my experience" you just condescend to others that they should recognize how great the world is for the 0.1%, completely unaware that it isn't great for people that can't afford food and housing. Nobody gives a shit about their TV when they're hungry on the street.
I was born into a lower middle class family with several siblings. My dad skirted bankruptcy. My first car literally came from a junkyard in pieces, bought with money I earned from my paper route. Hardly 0.1%.
(I didn't know how bad things were for him until I went through his papers after he died.)
I began investing with my first real job, with another crappy car I repaired with junkyard parts.
A good friend of mine grew up in a family that qualified for welfare but wouldn't accept it. He didn't get past high school. He managed to make himself $10m before his tragic death. Yes, the US is the land of opportunity. Other countries can emulate it if they want to.
A couple years ago, I booked an Uber ride. The driver was a refugee from Afghanistan. He arrived in the US with nothing but his skin. Within a few months he had a thriving business, driving the Uber in whatever extra time he had left. It was fun talking to him - he was hella ambitious!
In my experience, it's the nice people that get fired and the assholes that get promoted. It's not exactly a secret that silicon valley is full of arrogant assholes.
> we're quickly approaching a time where we'll have to take EVERY study skeptically until it can be replicated
I've always felt like this should be the norm. Why would you trust something before it can be replicated? Even if it's unintentional, people make mistakes.
> I've always felt like this should be the norm. Why would you trust something before it can be replicated? Even if it's unintentional, people make mistakes.
If you are close enough with a scientist, generally they will admit they don’t trust a single study
Some fields also have guardrails, such as the LIGO being two separate detectors a with two independent teams
Unfortunately, we have a media and political structure that uses the most recent study/model/whatever to advocate for, design, and enact policy before that review.
That list is garbage: it includes Tesla Megapacks (energy storage, not car), multi-car crashes where any car catches fire, a car carrier carrying Teslas catching fire, etc.
Did you have any actual statistics to back up your assertion?
Like the parent comment says, this is garbage. For the cybertruck it includes all fatalities (3 in a high speed crash that caught on fire, 1 in a different crash, 1 in the recent car bomb outside Trump's tower). For the pinto they only count the 27 deaths the NHTSA identified as being caused by the design flaw that led to catching fire from low speed collisions.
A meaningful comparison would say that the Pinto could catch fire as a result of a low speed collision and the cybertruck apparently does not.
The people involved are clearly trying hard to make the cybertruck look bad. If there was real data, I assume they'd present it. The fact they choose to produce these crude distortions instead implies to me there is not real data that makes the cybertruck look bad.
I'm not sure what your point is - as I've already mentioned this comparison is between all cybertruck deaths, none of which were low speed collisions resulting in a fire, and the deaths that the NHTSA review identified as caused by fires from low speed collisions caused by the design flaw in the Pinto.
I know that neither you nor the other commenters nor the person who made that website needs anyone to explain to you why this comparison is invalid. It is such a facile comparison that to describe it is to explain why it's invalid.
So, again, I'm confused as to the point of your comment.
And the only reason most domestic airlines, car manufacturers, and some of the largest financial institutions still exist is because of multiple bailouts. It's not like Tesla is unique in being helped by the government.
Indeed. If the government makes a habit of bailing out all the failures, eventually the system will be dominated by failures because they never get cleaned out.
Still doesn't imply that bailing out failures was a good idea though.
