Counter-point, cost per task is almost the same ($0.47 vs $0.50) between GLM 5.2 and Gemini 3.6 Flash. [0] Not to mention the subscription plans likely produce 10x value compared to GLM 5.2 API, unsure the rate limits on a equal subscription vs subscription, but Google subscriptions offer tons of other value, including 1 year of Free Gemini for Education accounts.
When you Robot folds your clothes but it's kinda wrinkly and sloppy but you accept it anyway because it's easier than precisely folded and pressed clothes.
Isn't that the story of <any> technology? When the coffee machines first came to be, Barista was definitely a better option. However, through the evolution, in many cases today machine does better job than barista.
Better analogy would be that even though the coffee machine is still worse, we choose it because it's more convenient (at least I think that's the case).
Anecdotal, but the best machine will never be able to do something as good as the best human in most circumstances. That is because, unlike machines, humans have passions and character that subtly imbues itself in the end result. This, of course, isn't limited to coffee, but to anything a machine could do that isn't strictly tied to exercises in logic (for example, computers will always be better than humans at most games because they can be analysed logically and acted upon)
But the point is you will never have the best barista all the time l. Unless you are 0.0001 % of population who can afford personal barista to follow you anywhere, you accept whoever is serving coffe at the corner shop. And for a machine to be better that <average> barista is not a tall order. So it makes good coffee accessible for many
I feel like, despite not being my (and presumably most of HNs, given the general demographics) cup of tea, sports are largely that. The players are skilled but also uniquely themselves. The world cup wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it were just unthinking robots fighting to see who can run around and kick things the best
I'm not sure what the :/ implies, but if you're disappointed by your own folding techniques, spend a bit of time on it, look up some guides, and fold clothes with purpose. or something.
(Rise up against the machines! Folding your own clothes is an act of resistance!)
I've always taken :/ to be a kind of hopeless dejection mixed with apathy. In this case, it seems to convey their disappointment in their skills as well as the futility of improving
When AI is a the forefront of scientific breakthroughs and all human endeavor is painfully minuscule compared to AI, we'll still be calling it slop as we all hypocritically generate more and more slop.
Nobody is proud of this. Where the hell did you get that idea?
I think weak and scared people tend to not want to face the truth about AI. I said the above not because I support it (I don't), I said it because it's the god awful truth. All trendlines point to steadily improving AI, and tons and tons of people continue to call it slop even though it is clearly becoming better.
My question for you is, in order to sleep at night do you have to lie to yourself? Do you make up stories about how AI will never be as good as human intelligence and do you assume anyone who says the contrary is an ardent supporter of AI? Have you thought that... maybe nobody really supports AI, they're just telling the truth?
Weird my ass, just stupid people who clearly assume the wrong thing.
I don't know why you would assume privilege from a comment like that. If anything, it's the unprivileged kids who would know that you'd get your hand slapped for folding clothes like that.
Speaking as a relatively unprivileged kid from Southeast Asia, my parents were so busy working they just didn't have time and energy to care about me, let alone how well i fold my laundry.
Obviously the theory is decades old. I think nowadays a Game Theorist would not go and claim that the fixed-point convergence is an actual market process with consumers and monopolists trying to outsmart each other in some kind of bizarro bazar game.
An equilibrium for a given game is - depending on the equilibrium concept (bummer, even more conditions) - is a stable outcome of some sort with usually no claims as to how it would actually be reached.
By that, you can already see that this is not really an actual theory of an empiric situation, but rather a mathematical model of a certain solution structure.
If you were to write this paper today as an economist and your goal was to claim that is actually, really holds in reality, then you'd not only have to produce the theory but you'd also have to build some sort of empirical model that you can estimate with somewhat plausible identification conditions and structure, or be able to show it in a (pseudo-)experiment setup that is believable enough.
Suffice to say that there are very few such claims made on reality in modern microeconomics (that is to say, Game Theory by and large)
As it turns out, these sort of mathematical models have quite a bit of value in a normative setup, say if you go and design a market or an auction. Less so as a theory to explain all of reality.
I think in Coase's time, it was easier to write a 6 page paper from your bathtub and claim something about the world. Wasn't there an xkcd comic like this?
Not really.
Game Theory (in this iteration at least) is about identifying equilibria, not about the process of reaching them. This is one of several "deviations" of Game Theory from "reality". The fact that equilibria are fixed-points and can be explained in some sort of bargaining process doesn't really mean that's how we should actually imagine them.
If we do so, we both overstate the theory (claiming some sort of actual behavioral process) and understate it being a (possibly quite general) fixed point to many possible market and non-market processes.
If you want to make Game Theory collide with reality, the actual convergence to an equilibrium is only one of many venues where there is a large divide. Other assumptions of these models - from rational behavior to uniform prior assumptions - are equally problematic.
Game Theory models are nevertheless very helpful because they require you to actually lay out your assumptions or - when you observe something else - reason about "what else is going on" in any of these areas. As it turns out (as another person has said), it is also immensely helpful when designing mechanism (i.e. games) like a Steam store or an ad auction, which is why tech companies hire quite a few Game Theorists.
But the point of the conjecture is not that "some equilibrium price exists and can be reached". The whole point is that even monopolists will actually sell this type of good directly at the marginal cost, at the fix point. That is the whole prediction; and/or that no one would buy if they did otherwise.
The monopolist would probably not even make the good in the first place if they knew they'd have to sell it at the marginal cost, because they'd make zero profit and be underwater on all of their development costs.
The issue if, of course, that marginal revolution overstates the contribution of a single empirical study here.
Of course everyone is aware that the original model doesn't hold in reality. The contribution of showing this in the ebook market is... not zero, but certainly not the implied "We killed the theory!!!!"
Instead, there are decades of papers poking holes in the Coase model and producing ideas as to why the conjecture doesn't hold.
In my mind, these are the more interesting contributions. The authors mention two, but I think far more tangible are time preferences, time horizon limits, pertubations, non-uniform prior assumptions and bounded rationality.
