I believe they're referring to the fact that if almost all of your code is written by junior developers without mentorship, you will end up wasting a lot of your development budget because your codebase is a mess.

They kind of actually are, though.

Not because they use CSV's but because, as an industry, they have not figured out how to reliably create, exchange, and parse well-formed CSV's.

I go back to my statement that skilled people don't complain about their tools because the tools they use are the best and they have nothing to complain about.

An organization that cared about data integrity absolutely could make CSV work. But that same organization would not use CSV because there would be no point in putting themselves through that kind of Mickey Mouse exercise.

It depends. On its own, UBI puts a downward pressure on the value of money. Some other things (e.g. setting low interest rates) also put a downward pressure on the value of money. However, some things (e.g. taxes) put an upward pressure on the value of money. So it comes down to how all of those factors balance out.

Yep. It's the difference between "Don't do these things, regardless of what the law says." and "Do whatever you want, but please follow your own laws while you do it".

As Paul Graham said, "Sam gets what he wants" and "He’s good at convincing people of things. He’s good at getting people to do what he wants." and "So if the only way Sam could succeed in life was by [something] succeeding, then [that thing] would succeed"

Sam Altman is basically the last person anyone should listen to.

"You could parachute [Sam Altman] into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king."

--Paul Graham, 2008

As you said: focus on what it does.

What it does is prevent companies that Anthropic needs to do business with from doing business with Anthropic.

> What it does is prevent companies that Anthropic needs to do business with from doing business with Anthropic.

If Anthropic “needs” the government to not have this rule, then perhaps they had a losing hand, and they overplayed it.

I don’t agree with you and think you’re being melodramatic, but if you are right, that’s my response.

I don't think any business can survive being told that they can't buy from their major suppliers or sell to major customers for very long.

It is in the specific case that you don't have biometric or PIN login set up on the device and you use a password manager that doesn't require authentication. In that case, the only factor is "something you have". Otherwise, it is still a multi-factor authentication because the device itself still represents "something you have", and your device unlock represents "something you know" or "something you are".

There's a very short blog post up: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...

Good point. Perhaps if you take them for 40 years, you become biologically immortal. Who can really say?

Having AI spew it might suffer from the fact that the spew itself is influenced by AI's weights. I think your best bet would be to use a new human-authored work that was released after the model's context cutoff.

And of course the benchmarks are from the school of "It's better to have a bad metric than no metric", so there really isn't any way to falsify anyone's opinions...