99% of people have zero epistemic foundation for any of their views so debated on the facts mean nothing

A terrifying amount of views are held on the basis of how good they make the holder feel.

I don’t think this should be terrifying, this is how it works and how it’s always worked. Understanding this is more helpful than pretending people are rational machines and if they don’t agree with your reasoning, that means they are defective and therefore dangerous.

Is "trust science" a good epistemic foundation?

This court decision seems insane, being illegal because you work hard to become the best.

Being a monopoly is correctly illegal regardless of how that status was obtained.

Whats the problem, for the layman it doesnt actually matter, and for the experts, its usually very obvious which model to use.

LLMs fundamentally have the same contraints no matter how much juice you give them or how much you toy with the models.

That’s not true. I’m a layman and 4.5 is obviously better than 4o for me, definitely enough to matter.

You are definitely not a layman if you know the difference between 4.5 and 4o. The average user thinks ai = openai = chatgpt.

Well, okay, but I'm certainly not an expert who knows the fine differences between all the models available on chat.com. So I'm somewhere between your definition of "layman" and your definition of "expert" (as are, I suspect, most people on this forum).

If you know the difference between 4.5 and 4o, it'll take you 20 minutes max to figure out the theoretical differences between the other models, which is not bad for a highly technical emerging field.

This is the "anyone can be a mathematician meme". People who hang around elite circles have no idea how dumb the average human is. The average human hallucinates constantly.

That's why the whole concept of rights is completely useless. It has no real metaphysical bearing and people just use it as an ever expanding wish list. There are only values and morals that arise from the synthesis of values and truths.

The notion of moral rights can be seen as a form of value and as such is about as workable as other notions of value e.g. virtue, duties, obligation and the good.

These articles are so dumb; of course higher p/e implies growth, the only interesting question is if the growth is real. Plenty of articles like this came out when Nvidia hit 1T, then 2T, then 3T. If there's interesting insight then bet on it, otherwise it's clear theres nothing of value to be said.