Doesn't satisfy the ADA. Department of Education would sue such a college for failing to accommodate disabled students. An accomodation that is available to everyone isn't an accomodation.
No, of course not, that'd be ridiculous. Where did you see that in my post?
To explain in more detail. The ADA says that an accommodation is when an entity (business, employer, school) makes a change of behavior. Installing a wheelchair ramp in an older inaccessible building is an accomodation. Granting extra time is an accomodation. Simply having accessible buildings or excessive time is not an accomodation.
But why the lawyers treat it differently. Business feel comfortable, when they have a ramp, arguing that no accommodation is necessary for the wheelchair bound. The standards of accessible physical design are clear. Schools do not feel comfortable saying that no accommodation is necessary for mental health issues, ever. Their lawyers advise them that it's much better to give some sort of accomodation and argue in court about sufficient accomodations vs giving no accomodation at all.
> if you presume they are honest, they tend to be honest. The students loved it, I loved it. If anyone cheated, the students would turn him in. Nobody ever bragged about cheating, 'cuz they would have been ostracized.
I think if you look at the 2012 Harvard cheating scandal, it's clear that this isn't true. There, the professor presumed honest students, hundreds cheated, and no student reported.
It doesn't always work, that's for sure. I suspect one of the things the admissions committee did was try to filter out the cheaters. Explaining how the honor system worked was part of the freshman orientation camp (held on Catalina Island).
One reason it did work is the students liked being trusted, and they did not like anyone that would threaten the system, and would turn them in.
BTW, that was 50 years ago. I have no information on how the honor system is fairing today.
> While not even really news, it's also worth mentioning that the energy requirements are impossible to fulfill
If you believe this, you must also believe that global warming is unstoppable. OpenAI's energy costs are large compared to the current electricity market, but not so large compared to the current energy market. Environmentalists usually suggest that electrification - converting non-electrical energy to electrical energy - and then making that electrical energy clean - is the solution to global warming. OpenAI's energy needs are something like 10% of the current worldwide electricity market but less than 1% of the current worldwide energy market.
Google recently announced to double AI data center capacity every 6 month. While both unfortunately deal with exponential growth, we are talking about 1% growth CO2 which is bad enough vs 300% effectively per year according to Google
Constraints breed innovation. Humans will continue to innovate and demand for resources will grow. it is fairly well baked into most of civilization. Will that change in the future? Perhaps but it’s not changing now.
Imagine how big pile of trash as the current generation of graphics cards used for LLM training will get outdated. It will crash the hardware market (which is a good news for gamers)
Is this AI paper written by a reputable subject matter expert? It seems to be written by a physicist and also be the only academic work by this author in English
How many articles on this topic do we imagine there are? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? It is hopeless to read every one by any author, no matter how unrelated to the domain, and judge them individually on their merits. Being a subject domain expert is not a perfect measure of paper quality but it's the only feasible way to make a first pass at filtering.
Even if I did read it, I have no hope of understanding if it has made a fundamental mistake because I don't have the subject matter expertise either.
(I imagine it has made a fundamental mistake anyway: for LLMs to be useful progress toward AGI they don't have to be a feasible way to create AGI by themselves. Innovation very often involves stepping through technologies that end up only being a component of the final solution, or inspiration for the final solution. This was always going to be an issue with trying to prove a negative.)
The core piece as quoted from the abstract: "AGI predictions fail not from
insufficient compute, but from fundamental misunderstanding of what intelligence demands structurally."
Then goes in detail as to what that is and why LLMs don't fit that. There are plenty other similar papers out there.
That's nice but... These American Meta employees make twice or three times your salary (assume average Europe tech wages). The package you'll get for 15 years work will make up that difference for the past 6 to 12 months. I don't know many Americans who would half their salary to get your benefits.
Pay is relative because they have to live there too. Costs of living are much higher over there. Even just healthcare, here it's free (well, paid from taxes). In the US it's a big expense. Also they get much fewer holidays (I get more than a month's worth per year).
But I would not move to the US (especially now obviously) or be without job security for double the wage. Life for me isn't about making as much money as possible, it's about enjoying my life and money is just one of the means to do that. Time is another big one.
And like the other poster said, I don't know americans who work 20 years and retire. On the contrary most I know have a 200+k$ student loan pending back home or are shuffling debt from card to card to make it look like they are paying it off.
There are no Meta employees with $200k of student debt nor any shuffling debt from card to card, except those with addiction issues (addiction can consume any amount of money).
The thing about a social safety net is that it makes life better for poor people. That's good. Praiseworthy even. Laudable.
The negative impact on economic growth and wages for high earners means the American tech workers are just richer than European tech workers. Any other analysis is a combination of wishful thinking and pseudoscience, quite frankly. Economics is science, just like biology and mathematics and physics.
Fwiw, I know a bunch of American tech workers who worked 20 years and then retired. Pretty much every person who works for Meta can name ten people like that. Those people tend to retire in Europe, where they can enjoy free healthcare while living off the incredible amount of money they made when they were young.
this is such a weird response to me. Those American Meta employees may have more money, but it's not enough money to stop working and their lives are objectively worse. What's the point of money then?
Well... their lives are objectively better, so, I don't really know what to tell you. It's true that poor people in America live less well that poor people in Europe (though if European economies continue to lag, this may stop being true in my lifetime), but Meta employees in America have really good lives. They have massive houses, retire young with huge savings, and send their kids to elite private schools.
And perhaps most importantly - if they decide to switch to Europe life, they can, with extra money in the bank. While European tech workers can't afford to live the high life in America.
Tbh, I'm sure I'm going to get down voted to hell, but it's pretty amazing how many highly educated and otherwise intelligent Europeans just... don't believe in economics anymore when economics says their lives are worse than their peers in America. It's one of the major touch points of anti intellectualism in this forum.
What you are describing is only one way of living a comfortable life. It is not an "objectively better" life than someone who has enough money to meet their needs and finds balance and joy in other places. For example, more fulfilling work, more opportunities to vacation, more peace of mind in a more communal society, better access to nature. Money only "objectively improves" your life up to a certain point.
Another tendency I find anti-intellectual is appealing broadly to "science" or "economics" to make claims that neither field supports.
Is GDP per capita a good measure or individual wealth in a country? If you don't like GDP, is PPP a good measure? If not PPP, what measure do you like? How have those measures changed over the past 20 years? How much did America's value on that measure change in the past 20 years? How much did Europe's?
When I speak of "science", I'm only speaking about using numbers to measure and compare. As it turns out, it doesn't really matter which metric you use. GDP, PPP, you name it - America went up substantially more than Europe over the past 20 years. A continent that used to be an economic peer is now a few notches poorer. If the trend continues, by the time I'm old, Europe will be poor compared to America, full stop. Just another region full of third world countries.
You can read https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ECI_24_PolicyBr... if you like or find your own sources. All the ones I've found say the same thing about the last 20 years. But if you can find some that say Europe is improving its economic standing compared to America, I'd be interested in reading them! I'm very open to having my mind changed by evidence!
I don't think you understand my point of view and also smokedetector1's with whom I wholeheartedly agree.
Economics and money is just numbers. It's not a measure of happiness in life. I just want to have enough money to not worry in life, I don't care about having much more than others. Doing a job I enjoy in a place I enjoy is worth much more to me. Would Elon Musk, the richest guy in the world be happier than me? I don't think he is, he's always angry about something. I wouldn't want to trade places with him. Having that kind of money is a burden, never being able to just walk around and discover a new town without a security detail, or partying until 6am without journalists capturing everything I do.
A big house doesn't make me (much) happier. A car definitely doesn't, driving really stresses me out (and I have a lot of driving experience having lived in many countries). We have great public transport here and that's enough for me because I live in the city.
And economics isn't really an exact science in my book. It's a social science, psychology based on human constructs. Which are different here in Europe anyway (more socialist). We chose to make the world work like this but it could be different too. More fair.
I moved to a lower wage country to have a better life and I'm a lot happier now. I will never be rich but I don't care. It's not a race to be the top, I want everyone to have a good life.
You can measure happiness with numbers. You can measure anything with numbers. I've welcomed you to provide your favorite happiness metric. But instead you insist that happiness cannot be measured in numbers. Anti-science attitude on display.
You cannot measure everything with numbers. Many things in life cannot even be ordered[0]. Lives are different. Yes, some are just worse/more challenging than others, but in general people and their experiences are wayyyyyyy too complex and multivaried to be projected onto the real line. Only by narrowing your understanding and experience of life to measurable phenomena like bank account balance can you actually do the comparison you're looking for. And then you've all but ruined your life.
To address your point, GDP per capita is not a good metric capturing happiness, for several reasons. Most trivially, because it does nothing to reflect the distribution of wealth. A country could (purely hypothetically ;) ) have massive GDP per capita but the benefits flow mainly to the top.
Even putting that aside, a culture with massive GDP but where the citizens don't have the time, peace, values, and social structures to enjoy life is not a happy society.
> Tbh, I'm sure I'm going to get down voted to hell, but it's pretty amazing how many highly educated and otherwise intelligent Europeans just... don't believe in economics anymore when economics says their lives are worse than their peers in America. It's one of the major touch points of anti intellectualism in this forum.
Immigrant from a developing nation, living in the UK here. I very much notice this attitude on hn, and elsewhere. Europeans (I include the UK obviously) are extremely protective of the idea that the welfare state here automatically makes everything better than life in the US. It's a bit easier to be objective when you live here but you're not actually from here.
I love the UK. It has been my home for over 20 years. I love the fact that there is a safety net that mostly, sort of, works. But I also know people from my original country who have moved elsewhere. Some who actually lived in the UK, then moved elsewhere. Some of those to the US, where they have really accelerated their earnings and their comfort and in some respects, quality of life.
I think there is no doubt that the material comforts that most people enjoy out of life will be improved just by working the same job in the US. Obviously there are non-tangibles such as living in a society where people can't carry guns, one of the things I appreciate about the UK compared to the US. Or also knowing that poorer people living just a few streets away from you can enjoy the same facilities I do (to a large extent), and are mostly going to be ok in life. I like living in Europe, where we're exposed to so much culturally. Etc.
So I can see both sides of this, but I am definitely on your side of the fence with regard material quality of life. My salary is high in the UK, I'm in the top percentile of earners, but without any family money, I'm never going to lead an extravagant life here. I'm going to struggle to retire early like my US peers would be able to.
how are they better? we're talking about them being forced to go into the office and despite having money having no power. The very thing that this thread was about is what is worse about their lives.
I don't know that a massive house is enough to make up for it.
> And it's not just about "quotas". That's an extreme-right talking point. Diversity done properly doesn't involve quotas
At Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Meta, diversity programs were implemented as soft quotas. All this talk about "diversity done properly" is just so much noise when approximately all the largest companies aren't doing it that way.
Soft quotas are not great but at my work (also a huge multinational but headquartered in Europe) we just use stats as a guide. Obviously if a country has 30% people of a certain ethnicity and in your employ it's 2% you're doing something wrong. We use that to measure hoe effective we are at combating bias and prejudice, what works and what doesn't. I wonder if that's sometimes regarded as a 'soft quota' but it shouldn't be.
We don't fix this with hiring targets. We hit the root cause with training for HR and management (and also some for all employees in the yearly mandatory training package). Recognising hidden bias, challenging people to bconsider their reactions.
And then measure the performance with stats, but not just force them. That's lazy and only fixes the problem on paper. Window dressing. Diversity is more than the hiring process anyway, a huge part is discrimination on the work floor. Often not by managers but co-workers, so we give management skills to deal with that.
Maybe in US big tech this is common but those are all pretty immoral companies anyway. See how quickly they pivoted to sucking up to Trump. The world is much bigger than the US and big tech.
> Do you apply this to everything? Like say, a sports team?
No, at work where we have tens of thousands of people.
Sport is a voluntary thing, people just join it when they want (I guess, I'm not into sports, not watching nor playing).
> Anything impressive to show for it? Because it really seems like all this focus on diversity is your downfall not your strength.
Yes we have great quality of life. It's not all about money.
In fact I asked to move to a country where the wage levels are much lower, to have a better quality of life. Here around the Mediterranean the weather is better, people enjoy life more and take it slower. There's much more things to do in my free time that I enjoy. When I'm back in Holland I hate it, people are so materialistic. Always talking about their new car, how big their TV is lol. I don't even own any car or motor and my TV is tiny but I'm much happier here.
Also diversity is just a thing we do, we're not all about that. I am because I voluntarily spend part of my work time on it (LGBTIQ in particular). For most people in the company it's a message here or there, one little training per year and maybe a talk from one of us at the town hall meetings which are optional.
There's other similar programs in the company about sustainability and ethics.
Uh.. You've started in the middle. Python 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 were insufficiently compatible to support a migration. If not for the effort to reduce 2 to 3 incompatibility by shipping 2.7 and 3.3, 3 could really have failed. I'd say the initial plan was not so good but then the _replan_ after the first setbacks was good.
I never saw the initial versions as viable versions for production work. IIRC, neither did the authors. Part of what I think was so good about the plan was that it was a parallel track for so long. They didn’t start the process of sunsetting v2 until v3 was ready to take on the migration. The specific steps taken, versions released, that wasn’t what was so good IMO. It was the time scale. This was a good decade long transition. The fact that Python thought it would have that much time to make the transition was audacious, but it was going to take that long. And now we have a better language that has supported many more years of growth.
reply