But this paper is not about extra EU migrants but all migrants.
And even then if we control for age they say they are contributing less than natives.
I think it would be very odd that less educated people on average contribute more than natives, especially if they are at risk of being discriminated when looking for a job.
What makes most hardware companies fail at software, for example? AI shops are usually run by ML people, succeeding at unrelated areas of expertise is hard for any organization.
But surely Google has both ML people and people expert at optimising stuff, be it hardware or software. In my opinion they have the talent, the sheer number of employees and the capital. Can deepseek really have people much more talented at optimizing stuff?
No I don't think they can, but then Google literally has their own custom inference hardware that they target so ... yeah 3.5 flash is extremely pricey compared to v4 pro and now I'm wondering why that would be. It's difficult to imagine they don't care given we know they're prepared to pay $2B / mo for additional GPU capacity.
The answer is a lean team that is also resource constrained. This not only fosters creativity, but also reduces bloat. People heavily underestimate how much inefficiencies(bloat) heavy bureaucracy adds.
To us, outside of the US, it was pretty obvious from day 1 of US chip-related sanctions on China that it will actually end up benefitting them more than punishing them.
Just wait till they flood the market with dirt-cheap GPU chips. And these are coming.. pretty soon.
"Furthermore, vegetarianism, though morally laudable, has an obvious economic limitation — when one person refuses to eat meat, it lowers the price of meat for everyone else"
I very much doubt that, I think the opposite is happening in the long term because of economies of scale.
So go ahead, become vegan! You already know you should!
Lowering demand doesn't always lower price. Assuming the industry is competitive, and capable of supplying all demand, which it usually is, the loss of demand mostly means less money for the producer, and more money for the former consumer to spend on something else.
They talk about subsidies, "draining its coffers", and "taxpayers helping some of the richest corporations on the planet buy servers, equipment, and power infrastructure", but it doesn't seem like they have lost any money, just that the tax breaks mean that they haven't earned as much as they could.
Not that I think that those datacenters should have those tax breaks, but the language seems quite misleading if not an outright lie, presumably without those the datacenters would have been built elsewhere.
> presumably without those the datacenters would have been built elsewhere.
presumably without the tax breaks someone else could have bought those products, used the land/resources while paying for their fair share. Billions that should have gone to support tax payers aren't there now so I think "taxpayers helping some of the richest corporations on the planet buy servers, equipment, and power infrastructure" seems fair.
it is a case of socialize the losses, privatize the gains.
regarding tax payers, the biggest sins of new data centers seem to be:
* driving power bills parabolic due to no mandated investment in power generation or delivery grid
* consuming water from the city system far beyond normal usage; water bills go up for normal people
* pollution; xAI in memphis illegally uses gas turbines with no pollution controls; air is very dirty around their data center; data centers apparently are noisy in places
legislation is needed to force costs currently being borne by normal people back on to the data centers reaping all of the profit.
Yet LLMs can play chess and have a "mental" representation of the chessboard.
If LLMs get better but do not progress at playing games when not specifically trained on it it seems to point to a generalisation failure, a limitation that would prevent LLMs to ever achieve AGI, I do not know if that is weird but it seems that for now nobody really knows if they can achieve AGI or not. Perhaps some emergent behavior will arise after more scaling.
To me it's only totally unsurprising if you are 100% certain that LLMs will never reach AGI (like LeCun thinks for example).
Chess is representable entirely in text as well, and generally speaking the LLM concept of "picking the next best token" fits pretty well for "picking the next best move" where a move is a text token
That representation is also old, incredibly well documented, and used to describe how to reason about chess. There are of course text guides to other games in training data but they rely upon depictions of what’s happening that aren’t purely text so the game harness is always going to have to make novel decisions about represent the game as text.
I suspect the plan was (and still is) to weaken authorities in Iran so that the people take over. Or have the Iranian government reach a deal that would be less favorable to them.
A plan with quite long odds you could rightly say, but not as stupid as subduing them by invading them I suppose.
It would help if the US didn't ignore the actual protests in Iran and haven't let the Iranian regime slaughter the protesters in hundreds or even thousands.
It was even worse than that - the US leader actively encouraged the protests, only to forget about them once the slaughter began.
"Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! ... help is on its way", said Trump. And then... nothing. They could have provided money, weapons, intelligence, support of all kinds but instead chose to let their potential allies be slaughtered.
Similarly, the US facilitated the dismantling of Rojava, the Kurdish polity in North-Eastern Syria. The Kurds had been led to believe that they'd be able to retain some form of semi-autonomy, but the US pulled the rug from them at the last possible moment. And then, er, wondered why their cousins in Iran weren't willing to rise up against the government there.
It's almost as if they spent the whole of January putting themselves into the worst possible position for achieving their war aims. What did they hope to achieve by sabotaging themselves in that way?
It still sounds like a dumb plan, especially since part of it was the plan to put a hereditary king as new ruler in place - a king that lived outside of Iran the whole time.
And per analysis I heard in French media from Iranian opposition understood the war as a war of destruction, not as a war of liberation. As they continued to be executed daily by the regime.
Meanwhile one of multiple explicit day 1 plans was a plan to negotiate with successor within the regime - recreate the Venezuela situation where you keep the regime, keep its tortures, but put head more willing to give up oil on its head.
Trump explicitly stated that was his aim, for the people to rise up after Trump did a little long distance assassination. The plan is far more stupid than subduing Iran by invasion.
"At 2:30 a.m. EST on 28 February, Donald Trump released an eight-minute video statement on Truth Social, saying that the purpose of the US strikes in Iran was effectively[vague] regime change."
He also said it was about The Bomb and nothing else. And that regime change has been achieved. And that the war is already over. Why do you feel the need to defend this stupidity?
There’s only one group of people dumber than US politicians and that’s the American people who support them.
Not saying this is a smart plan, but how is it far more stupid than invading Iran which is basically impossible unless you are ready for tens or hundred of thousands of casualties among your own citizens?
"Investors who have poured hundreds of billions into closed-source labs are betting on an unprovable safety moat".
Nobody is investing in closed-source labs for safety reasons, being able to explore more in details what and how the model is thinking is nice but by no means a game changer. What matters to investors and most of the users is that the model gives the right answer at the end.
I set my chats to be automatically deleted in 24 hours. This way when we have a small argument with someone, there's less chance of someone being triggered/angered by re-reading the chat. Although there have been rare cases where I had big arguments and would've liked to have the receipts.
The only reason I default to 6 months is because 6 months appears to be the cut off after which the history is useless. It's occasionally saved my an arguement about what was agreed / said / planned. Otherwise I'd burn them after an hour.
But if storage isn't an issue, why go out of your way to remove them? Don't you think there is an underlying reason you are changing the default to remove them?
I don't go out my way, I just change the default. The underlying reason is it's useless data, why would I keep it? I don't transfer chats when I move phones either so...
I feel like you think there's something wrong with not collecting and keeping this data. I genuinely don't know why you would.
I do not think there is anything wrong with that (just that this is uncommon and surprising, so I'm curious), but in my hypothetical scenario where storage isn't an issue, having useless data stored should not matter.
Changing the default is not a big deal, for sure, but would you still do it if it required 10 minutes of your time every 6 months? If yes, I just cannot believe that you have no reason to do it. Perhaps it makes you feel freer, perhaps you think your device is more organized or cleaner, or something else.
But of course in real life data uses storage, but I feel like most people are on the other extreme and keep too much (data or possessions) because they cannot let go, but chat data footprint is usually minimal unless you receive lots of photos/videos.
I just not that way included. I don't like clutter. And were it a 10 minute process id never use the service at all. Maybe I'm odd, I don't use social media either, and only use a single chat app currently on my device. I regularly delete chats as well, not just alter the default retention period. I'm just really not interested in chat history at all. I view it as useless data once it's a week or so old.
You keep saying storage isnt an issue, but having a large digital footprint is just more baggage to manage in future. I want to let these conversations/relationships evolve and change over time, I dont want to keep revisiting them at a certain point.
Each time I get a new phone, I go through and curate the photos/ files worth saving, back them up offline, then start fresh.
Just because you can store everything, infinitely, forever, doesnt mean you need to.
Also it keeps asking you for execution permission all the time for the same commands over and over again (even if you add them to the settings).
Worse, I selected "Terminal Command Auto Execution: Proceed in Sandbox", and it keeps switching to "Always Proceed" (with a nice warning about how it is very dangerous). I have changed it 10 times then just gave up and switched to Codex.
I think it would be very odd that less educated people on average contribute more than natives, especially if they are at risk of being discriminated when looking for a job.
reply