KevonLooney

This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.

I understand your point, but neo-marxist perspectives like this fundamentally misunderstand what companies care about (for obvious reasons). No company cares about "class power" or "privilege" because shareholders only care about their own money.

Their "class" is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.

The funny thing is that there are executives who know what they're doing, but they may be outvoted by people who failed upward due to connections or a "good background" (ivy league, internship, etc.).

I always thought "what does a brand name education prove?" This isn't the 1800s. Community college now is almost as good as Harvard was in the 1800s. Back then, just being able to read meant that you were educated.

Also, what does an internship prove? You know how to carry 8 coffees at once? You can wear a cheap suit? No, it's all cover for connections. If businesses wanted the best people (say the top 10%) you could literally just set up a table outside a subway station and interview random commuters, getting probably 10 good prospects in a day.

Yes, it was. Tech led the downturn yesterday, but Nasdaq was only down like 2%. The "world" stocks (ex-US) are more volatile than the US. In my opinion (and Warren Buffett's), they are not worth investing in as ETFs. Only particular companies. The markets are genuinely worse than in the US.

This isn't software, it's a car. It's highly regulated. NHTSA doesn't care if it's a software issue.

No, I think you are confusing the two kinds of trusts: a revocable trust means you still own the money or property, an irrevocable trust means you don't own it anymore. Either you "give it away" in an irrevocable trust (which can't be "dissolved"), or you don't give it away (in a revocable trust).

You are describing putting something in a revocable trust, which is not spending it or giving it away. It's closer to just putting a label on it: "this money is for charity". You don't get a tax deduction unless you put the money in a irrevocable charitable trust or the charity actually receives the money (from any source, trust, whatever).

That's giving the money away. Either you are still controlling the trusts, or you gave the money to the trusts.

They are blocking new ones, not old ones.

Are they new posts or old ones? They are blocking new ones, not old ones.

It's not just a predictive text program. That's been around for decades. That's a common misconception.

As I understand it, it uses statistics from the whole text to create new text. It would be very rare to output "cats have feathers" because that phrase doesn't ever appear in the training data. Both words "have feathers" never follow "cats".

Then these models are stupid. Humans don't start as a blank slate. They have an inherent aptitude for language and communication. These models should start out with basics of language, so they don't have to learn it from the ground up. That's the next step. Right now they're just well read idiots.

provenance requires some way to filter the internet into human-generated and AI-generated content, which hasn’t been cracked yet

It doesn't need to be filtered into human / AI content. It needs to be filtered into good (true) / bad (false) content. Or a "truth score" for each.

We don't teach children to read by just handing them random tweets. We give them books that are made specifically for children. Our filtering mechanism for good / bad content is very robust for humans. Why can't AI just read every piece of "classic literature", famous speeches, popular books, good TV and movie scripts, textbooks, etc?

They don't care about policy, they care about tax cuts. Rich Republicans do not care about social issues. Their judges won't care about one side or the other.