Remove “more intelligent” here and I’ll give you some benefit.
The problem with healthcare “economics” is that providing high quality care is likely not as profitable as middling care, or sub-standard care.
You say that economics is meant to deliver cheap quality goods, but in reality here economics for PE is value extraction and has nothing to do with consumer good at all - unless of course there’s more profit there. Most of the time, there isn’t.
That's really not true. Studies have shown that there's little correlation between care quality and profitability. In some cases non-profit health systems charge high prices and deliver terrible care quality. The reality is that most provider organizations are run by incompetent managers. People used to working in modern tech companies would be shocked to see the waste, inefficiency, and missed opportunities. PE acquisitions may cause some problems but the new managers do at least bring a basic level of discipline and operational competence that was often missing before.
Modern tech companies are not managed well at all in my experience! They’re rife with waste.
Management often makes terribly unprofitable decisions and often work to protect their slices of the pie rather than the org.
Tech companies are saved by their margins, their aura, and low interest rates.
Better examples might be grocery stores or other low margin businesses that require some fairly ruthless prioritization (at least that is what I’m to understand)
To your care / profitability argument: that is good news! However, I do believe that concern for profitability will always outweigh a care quality argument so there is a misalignment of incentives in that case. I would look to insurers to demonstrate this, generally, but can imagine a PE-owned hospital system might attempt similar measures.
Ideal outcome is a great manager that also cares and ends up paying doctors more and providing excellent care while driving down costs using better processes and negotiating with suppliers. But, uh… not sure how often the benevolent PE firm actually shows up historically.
Apple has, for most of its existence, been a distant second choice, because IBM and Microsoft captured the enterprise, which trickled down into consumer buying habits.
It survived, then thrived, by making its products so appealing that customers would buy them anyway.
Apple is not a PE firm. They are a public consumer goods company with a ton of different business lines. Their duty is shareholder value and making good products that sell is one way to do that.
Value extraction is a short term play. It’s usable by most companies in a pinch, but normally only happens before their death or slow decay into zombie-dom. At least, that’s what my anecdata tells me.
What happens when you ask it to play chess against you if the chess game has an API? Are you measuring chess or multi-tasking skill?
Also what harness? If you’re using a general harness of course it’s going to try and give you commentary.
I say this not because I’m an LLM shill but because false equivalence is all over the place in the space and maybe it’s a fine heuristic for you but probably not a real outcome when it comes to the capability of LLMs.
Why does a 6 year old not need any of these guardrails?
Frontier model’s failure modes are a direct refutation of claims that we’ve reached (or will soon reach) the artificial general intelligence. We may have reached an artificial general intelligence, but there may be more complexity to this than even AI thought leaders are talking / influencing about.
Maybe not all AGIs have a path to digital singularity. Maybe our current era of intelligence modeling has fundamental flaws and we are in a local minimum of the artificial intelligence space.
To note, I would bet with a good amount of certainty that we have enough compute power and automation to DDOS the internet out of existence with botnets. That doesn’t make the frontier models intelligent, that just makes their handlers reckless.
Hm? Drawing the next move's game state based on the current one is a very simple task. Chess academies are probably full of six-year-olds who could do this.
For adults getting into playing tournament chess, losing to some kid barely tall enough to reach the board is a rite of passage.
Well, would a dissected frontal lobe in and of itself be intelligence?
I think the same goes for LLMs, they may be a core part of an LLM harness, but you may still need a couple other components (e.g. it may itself write itself a deterministic function to validate steps).
In and of itself intelligence is an ill-defined and badly understood concept.
You're pointing out that the goalposts are not fixed in the problem statement above, and gp's interpretation is not the most generous possible. But as the interpretations get more generous, the claim becomes more and more absurd. Maybe a properly-harnessed model would download the most advanced chess engine and query it to find the best move in each position, but that's not really demonstrating the model's intelligence anymore.
> but because false equivalence is all over the place in the space and maybe it’s a fine heuristic for you but probably not a real outcome when it comes to the capability of LLMs.
This isn't just about judging LLM capability. This is about pointing out that these capabilities are not "AGI". If it were, then the sorts of questions your asking would be moot. I agree that Luna is not the frontier (although it is clearly better than the models in the study) and I agree that things can be improved with a better harness, but the need for that harness is kind of the point.
Recently it was announced that the fruit fly brain connectome had been mapped, and more recently someone tried using it specifically to implement a chess engine. Even with some guardrails (it's hard-coded to never overlook mate in one for either player, and only legal moves are presented to choose from) it is not even beginner level. But that neural network is much larger than the one Stockfish uses.
If I’m Canada I look for a trade agreement rather than associate membership - no reason to put your eggs in one basket.
As an American, I continue to be sad and tired that our current president is somehow allowed to unilaterally destroy a very successful and thriving trade partner via arbitrary tariffs that have already been ruled illegal and while it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference I’m sorry about it.
Don't be. Trump is a necessary and welcome wake up call. We Canadians needed Trump's shock of reality.
The truth is that, for more than a century, the main trait of being Canadian was simply not being American and not trusting Americans.
In 1775 George Washington ordered the invasion of southern Quebec and we resisted. After the American revolution we received an huge influx of Loyalists, the Americans that didn't want to be part of the U.S.; we say the American Revolution created 2 countries: yours and ours. In 1812 Americans raised war against us, as a continuation of the Napoleonic wars. Although we were still a British colony, we fought back, invaded Washington DC and set the White House on fire. In 1890, the McKinley Tariffs were meant to subjugate us, the same way Trump wants to do now [1]. They backfired, made us stronger.
But in the 80's the Reagan-Mulroney trade agreement fooled us. We became too reliant, friendly and confident to the Americans. It was a dangerous illusion. The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans. Luckily for us, Trump reminded us that lesson on time, before it would be too late.
> The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy probably learned this the strongest. And more even than the Loyalists help build this country. Or I'm more conscious of this as I live in a place where Joseph Brant's (Thayendanegea) name is all over the place.
But they -- and Britain's other indigenous "allies" in the US interior -- also learned the hard way that the British couldn't be trusted either. The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them ; which the British were formerly allied with.
And while the Iroquois were granted all extensive lands along the Grand river as reward for helping fight the Americans in 1784 (Haldimand proclamation) -- they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be.
> The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them
The British tried to create a native "buffer" zone. The Americans refused, and the British were ultimately in no position to make this happen. Instead they implemented article IX that demanded that the US return all entitlements, possessions, lands, and so on to natives as they were in 1811. The US agreed.
And then ignored it. The British were in no position to "let" or "prohibit" anything within the US or its territories.
> they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be.
They literally sold it off, for their own benefit, as a free peoples with agency. There is extraordinary little controversy about this. And FWIW, the British bought that land from another tribe, and then moved a tribe -- one that had slaves, btw, and Joseph Brant was a notorious slaver -- in basically as refugees.
There are tiny areas where there is a contention that whatever band leader was in charge was illegitimate, but the vast majority of the transactions are settled historic record that absolutely no one has under doubt. A group of people had a lot of land and not much to do with it, so when other groups made offers for it they were onboard.
"Chipped away" is quite a hilarious misrepresentation of this. It actually sounds comically racist, like you're the "good guy" who is here to tell them that what they did with their own stuff was wrong.
It's interesting how patronizing both your points are. The British were both responsible for American actions, and then in the future were responsible for Mohawk actions. All lesser peoples have no agency or self-control, and need to be limited and directed by the apparently superior, all-knowing British.
My ancestors here in Ontario owned large tracts of land. Over centuries they sold it off. "Chipped away". No good guys, right? Give me back my land. The British should have stopped them from selling, because surely hundreds of years later it might be worth more?
I just happen to have an extra Pi and an e-ink display sitting around and I LOVE this idea. Going to try it on my screened in porch - we typically get 10-20 Merlin detections on a decent day so this could be fun!
reply