Everyone thinks this bubble will continue until AGI(bulls) or until someone calls them on it(bears). I think it will continue until someone finds a quick way to make cheap energy(bullish) or until we can't build more power plants to support AI growth(bearish).
While nothing fancy has happened yet in the area of cheap energy, there is still enough power around the world to build AI data centers. The problem is this power exits in countries that the West has decided, many times for good reasons, they don't want to deal with their leaders.
I'm predicting that over 2027, either the US will become more aggressive in making war with these countries or company CEOs will start developing "reality-distorsion-fields" around them and decide having enough power for the next datacenter is more for the good of humanity. Before that Europe will decide that AI training on human faces(eg. of non-Europeans) is not really a problem and will allow US companies to train their models in EU countries.
While this is true, improvements in the TLS issuance process should also improve security. When the eventual deprecation of TLS-ALPN-01 and DNS-01 comes, this new method would be completely secure.
Here, the record could for example contain a signature from the same key pair used to authenticate the account. The alternative is DNSSEC, but that's avoided by a lot of domains.
It would be so nice of that tax was actually "burned"(similar to proof of stake), instead of being used to fund even greater inflation. This comes in the form of a huge administration, which gets payed for providing, many times, negative value. Alternatively, it is used to pay social benefits for the sole purpose of keeping the current political party in power.
> Alternatively, it is used to pay social benefits for the sole purpose of keeping the current political party in power
This sounds like a 2-party government problem, not a tax problem. Plenty of countries do just fine spending that money to provide healthcare, unemployment, etc to their citizenry. Only really seems to be the US that views this as a negative
Us does spend the money on healthcare, it is just very inefficient. US government spends much more per capita than any other country. 50% than the #2 country, Germany.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers but according to OECD, the per capita spending in the US is 13k. That's public and private spending. I don't think your 12k per capita number is just public spending.
This can be a problem, especially for the elderly. In France the retired (pensions are publicly funded) save 25% of their income on average, and earn more than the workers. France is also the most taxed country in the OECD and most voters are either retired or will retire next decade. It's just another clientelism.
The USA is very corrupt, true. But getting rid of the "huge administration" and burning tax receipts is not going to solve that. How could it?
One of the roles of the state in a modern society should be to ensure no one is left behind to starve, wither and freeze amongst the incredible resources we (as a society) have accumulated.
That takes administration. That takes resources. That is what your taxes should be used for.
I agree that far too much is used to give aid to the powerful, but the solution to that should not be to condemn the weak.
Burning taxes and de-funding the administration is exactly that: condemning the weak.
It will be a cold day in hell before Americans stop assuming everyone on the internet is American or talks about the US government.
The government's role is whatever the people voting for it decide it to be - maybe to defend the borders, maybe to educate everyone, maybe keep everyone fed, clothed and sheltered.
The issue is, again I don't really care about the US or your government, some governments come to power on a platform of welfare. As long as they keep giving people "welfare" they will continue to be voted in power. As such, they will distribute wealth created in that country towards the goals of staying in power.
Myself, without being special, I never found myself having the same needs as this majority. Unfortunately, since I'm a minority (middle class), without the means to avoid being coerced into contributing to this plan (not super-rich), I'm left without recourse.
The weak are intentionally condemned through poor education and by voting idiots that promise them bullshit to get elected, not because the government doesn't have enough tax money. This cycle will never break by allocating more money, and the last 100 years have plenty of examples in that sense.
I think OP is talking about decoupling tax and government spending, Modern Monetary Theory-style.
In this model government just prints all the money it needs in order to function. Taxation isn't used to fund government, it's used to give your currency value, and to stop inflation running out of control. Metaphorically, you might as well pile all that tax take up and burn it, because once you've collected it it's performed its function.
This is a very simplistic take on MMR, and I don't think it would work in the real world, but spending does precede taxation.
I don't think that's what GP is saying. This report would be more believable and more objective if it would have other types of metrics than just self-reporting ones.
There is a kind of people that function by finding edge-cases, questioning the results and posing uneasy questions when presented with a situation. Some might call them "haters", or nit-pickers, but I think their way of thinking is useful to make sure we're not just being fed feel-good make-believe.
This is a very cool to have! Thanks for putting the time to build it.
For me it doesn't work very well. Even easy phrases like 他很忙 get transcribed completely random "ma he yu". Is it maybe over-fitted to some type of voice?
To me, this raises an interesting question: how can social networks serve the "small brother" use-cases, which openly oppose government, while government can exercise pressure on the company behind them?
Short answer is they can’t. Nor can any company, not just social networks. The solution is balancing the power and ownership in society through redistribution, unions, or other ways. It’s harder to bribe the thousands of employees and shareholders of a company (if they have same votes).
I'm sorry, but when you say "redistribution" I hear "communism", which is always totalitarian. This would prevent the non-harmonious social network from existing in the first place. Even if a company is owned by it's employees - it is the case with Meta, btw, they might still vote for the highest profit, which in some circumstances equals not being shutdown by the totalitarian head of state.
I do agree with having checks and balances. One of the pillars, missing here, is having a legislature which is not too busy getting rich to exercise its role in society.
As per the announcement, we’ll be building this over the next months and sharing more information as this rolls out. Much of the fundamentals can be extracted from Lennart’s posts and the talks from All Systems Go! over the last years.
I am a strong believer in the "low-tech" solutions for this kind of thing. I seriously doubt the terrorist suicide bomber knows if drinking the explosive is going to prevent them from taking the mission to the end (ie. they will die in 5 min, in 30 min or in 24h), so they will start panicking when asked to drink from the bottle.
No, it is a hypothesis I formulated here after reading the article. I did a quick check on google scholar but I didn't hit any result. The more interesting question is, if true, what can you do with this information. Maybe it can be a way to evaluate a complete program or specific heap allocator, as in "how fast does this program reach universality". Maybe this is something very obvious and has been done before, dunno, heap algos are not my area of expertise.
Today I thought a lot about this topic and was also trying to find connections to computation. Seems like "computational entropy" could be a useful bridge in the sense that to derive a low entropy output from a high entropy input, it seems intuitively necessary that you'd need to make use of the information in the high entropy input. In this case you would need to compute the eigenvalues, which requires a certain wrestling with the information in the matrices. So even though the entries of the matrices themselves are random, the process of observing their eigenvalues/eigenvectors is has a certain computational complexity involved with processing and "aggregating" that information in a sense.
I realize what I'm saying is very gestural. The analogous context I'm imagining is deriving blue noise distributed points from randomly distributed points: intuitively speaking it's necessary to inspect the actual distributions of the points in order to move the points toward the lower entropy distribution of blue noise, which means "consuming" information about where the points actually are.
The "random song" thing is similar: in order to make a shuffle algorithm that doesn't repeat, you need to consume information about the history of the songs that have been played. This requirement for memory allows the shuffle algorithm to produce a lower entropy output than a purely random process would ever be able to produce.
So hearing that a "purely random matrix" can have these nicely distributed eigenvalues threw me off for a bit, until I realized that observing the eigenvalues has some intrinsic computational complexity, and that it requires consuming the information in the matrix.
Again, this is all very hunchy, I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Interesting, I did not know that colors-of-noice was related to this, what you say sounds conceptually very similar to how Maxwell's demon connects thermodynamics to information theory.
While nothing fancy has happened yet in the area of cheap energy, there is still enough power around the world to build AI data centers. The problem is this power exits in countries that the West has decided, many times for good reasons, they don't want to deal with their leaders.
I'm predicting that over 2027, either the US will become more aggressive in making war with these countries or company CEOs will start developing "reality-distorsion-fields" around them and decide having enough power for the next datacenter is more for the good of humanity. Before that Europe will decide that AI training on human faces(eg. of non-Europeans) is not really a problem and will allow US companies to train their models in EU countries.
reply