They're also mountain ranges formed from the collision of plates? Otherwise, nothing, the timelines of the formation of the Himalayas and the Appalachians are hundreds of millions of years apart.
> You can already use Claude Code for non engineering tasks in professional services and get very impressive results without any industry specific modifications
After clicking on the link, and finding that Claude Code failed to accurately answer the single example tax question given, very impressive results! After all, why pay a professional to get something right when you can use Claude Code to get it wrong?
‘LLM tuned GPUs’ are just GPUs. The tuning refers to the models and how they use something like CUDA or whatever. There was a GPU shortage even before LLMs properly burst onto the scene, back with crypto mining. Now, it’s possible TPUs might add a wrinkle to later demand side issues when there is a crash but that will depend on how useful TPUs actually end up being to those outside Google. But GPUs will remain useful, whether it’s for gaming, machine learning (not the AI slop variety of this, but more categorising like for self-driving cars or medical imaging etc), or for the next crypto scam. Surely you agree that powerful computing capacity, independent of AI scams, is here to stay, right?
My main point in arguing that now isn’t like 2000 is that unlike in 2000 we have actual hardware and physical assets underpinning this bubble. In 2000 the assets were literally just imaginary. Yes there is speculation now but it is underpinned by silicon that will still be worth decent money even after LLMs are exposed as a hallucinatory mirage.
> I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer.
Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?
> Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?
A SCOTUS ruling is a primary source, and there's a pretty good universal rule that primary sources can be difficult to properly digest if you don't fully have the context of the source; for most people, reading a secondary source or a tertiary source will be a superior vehicle than the primary source for understanding. Although that said, some secondary and tertiary sources do end up being just utter garbage (a standard example is the university press release for any scientific paper--the actual merits of that paper is generally mangled to hell.)
How does it not have anything to do with the quality of the writing? The writing is supposed to convey some facts, but it's too busy pushing narratives and layering on snark that it fails to convey real facts. Even in this comment section the people who applaud the article don't really understand what's happening because they soaked up so much of the narrative-pushing from the article.
Meta (which is short for the metaverse btw) occasionally remembers the metaverse existing, too, whenever there's a small break to be had from the AI stuff.
reply