If the space economy expands + if spacex continue to hold market share + if it can do so while increasing profitably against increasing competition in the future. And considering the argument is for "the most valuable company", if spacex can do all of the above while other non-space related companies that are hugely profitable slow down their paces of innovation, spacex could be the most valuable company ever.
At least for art - I don't think you'll find anyone who actually enjoys art hanging up anything produced by AI on their walls. For these kinds of "customers", they could equally easily frame & hang up a poster of the Mona Lisa. Artists are not at threat, if anything, AI makes original artworks more precious & enjoyable.
Come on now, by this logic marines should not be allowed to live in the US at all as they couldn't be trusted to go out in public without strangling someone for doing something that they deem a potential threat.
Deploying troops to Greenland right now would be solely aimed at seizing Greenland by force and would be a major international incident against the US's most important military allies. Deploying troops to Minnesota would be a domestic show of force that would have minimal impact, as they are incapable of seizing Minnesota for the US as it is already a US territory, so they would be used to guard public buildings (and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day).
Maybe something like a publicly traded company, Citizens can vote directly on individual bills, or choose a proxy to vote on their behalf (and change that choice at any point that desire).
No. You state that this is all that it would take to be considered as tremendous business value. You are moving your goal posts on your point. My point is that you are taking an absolute position that there is tremendous business value in its current form(as a miniscule improvement and one insignificant new use case does does not equate to tremendous business value in itself) and so that remains to be seen.
So if the plateau is unanimously declared to have been reached tomorrow OR just one more tiny use case exists tomorrow and all others dwindle away to nothing, than you consider yourself to be correct? What a wild assertion!
Hoping someone here may know the answer to this, but do any of the benchmarks that exist currently account for false answers in any meaningful way, other than it would in a typical test (ie, if I give any answer at all it is better than saying "I don't know" as the answer I give at least has a chance of being correct(which in the real world is bad))? I want an LLM that tells me when it doesn't know something. If it gives me an accurate response 90% of the time and an inaccurate one 10% of the time, it is less useful than one that gives me an accurate answer 10% of the time and tells me "I don't know" the other 90%.
I would love it if this were the solution, embossed card imprinters can work without internet and power and are both fast and intuitive. It worked as a primary method in the past, it can work as a backup method in the future.