I concur. It's interesting that this seems so difficult to get rid of; despite actively trying to overlook the taste of LLM writing, it still grates, and this does not happen to me in the same way even with communication from half-illiterate human idiots.
It's kinda fascinating how far LLM coding/problem solving has come without making much progress on the annoyingness of their writing. Any theories?
The regulation crucially results in your recruits not dying for no good reason during training just because some random piece of trash equipment predictably failed.
Preventing that is much more important than the exact dollar efficiency of said equipment during peacetime.
Yeah, but you can always buy a slightly smaller bird, strap the warhead directly to it, and fly that into your target 100+ miles away.
Guided missiles specifically are insanely pricey by comparison to the warhead alone; just for the possibility that your slow, vulnerable drone might be able to return (and be used again) you have to make very expensive engineering tradeoffs, and even when the thing comes back you have to repair and service it, too (and stock it up with more expensive missiles).
First: microwaves are only safe if you don't mess with them, a bunch of people get killed by tinkering with their high-voltage transformers (at least 35 US deaths from one specific usecase alone in the last decade, see https://www.woodturner.org/Woodturner/Resources/Safety-Mater...).
A big potential concern with small reactors are highly toxic radionuclides; those can be much more dangerous (with LD50 far under 1mg/kg) than "ordinary toxins" like bleach or even nasty stuff like methyl isocyanate. That means expensive disposal and protection measures.
All of this is a non-concern though because there is no realistic path for nuclear reactors to compete with PV+batteries, ever. With cells already <$100/kWh and the panels being cheaper than glass windows, we will never be able to build, maintain and dispose of nuclear based reactors tech at a competitive price point, especially not with the insane current battery demand (automotive) driving technical optimisation and price competition.
If you onshore production via tariffs while having low unemployment, you are basically forcing your population to build basic stuff despite them having better things to do.
This is somewhat justifiable with vital sectors like agriculture, but if you do this in an arbitrary way just for the sake of it you just make stuff more expensive and your workforce less productive for no gain.
Those dollars are not just vanishing abroad, you are getting actual stuff for them, and your citizens then don't have to spend their own time building it and can do something more productive instead.
"won" is a very strong word for a country that sits economically somewhere between South Sudan and Congo, with a primary "enemy" that started out similarly and is now easily 20 times richer.
Self-sufficiency and exclusion from global trade can be very expensive for a nation long-term (a cautionary tale, since those ideals are a bit of a siren call nowadays to many Americans, after getting quite wealthy by doing the exact opposite).
Even if 10% of population were actively criminal pedos (which is waaaay too high), its pretty safe to assume that the majority of even their online footprint would be ordinary images/messages.
So a quota of 0.1% or even less material being detectably criminal sounds realistic (probably not much less, though).
Mencken just has the best quotes. Here's a few of my favorites:
> The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
> For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
> Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.
And not just because corruption has some "indirect taxation" effect, but also because low corruption/trust is a big enabler for a society.
You are never gonna get rid of clannish mentality, vigilantism, nepotism and other undesirable behavior if your citizens don't have any trust in the system.
The big drop in Chinese fertility is going to be very disruptive in the near future, because it is much less gradual than European trends and the retiree/workers ratio is going to spike much harder because of that.
Having full authoritarian control is not gonna change anything now because it is already much too late (action would have been required like 35 years ago).
Best they can do is get through it somewhat smoothly.
edit: This is an even better visualization (projected working age population fraction)
I'm unsure what exactly you mean by sigmoid stacking.
I'd argue that a lot of important technologies (like circuit design!) started at basically zero in the last century, and the progress was actually exponential for a significant time (=> because we started so low on the curve).
But if you reduce things to a single metric (wealth per person? total energy available to humanity? global industrial/construction output in tons?) I can't think of anything where such "stacking" successful subverted the sigmoid trend (or looks like it will, long-term).
Again, you are assuming that frontier models will stay meaningfully ahead long-term. Export controls/bans are pointless if this is not the case.
There is ton of strong indicators that they will not stay ahead: Assuming that technological progress of any kind follows some form of logistic function (where "gains", in this case "intelligence" become sub-linear at some point) is (long-term) a very conservative and proven assumption, and "automatically" negates your lead over time.
Similarly, purely "intellectual" advantage in disciplines like cryptography/computer chess/algorithm design never really stayed concentrated, either.
You could just as well read the european approach as a bet that frontier models will be unable to keep a significant edge over open competition (and thus not worth throwing subsidies at, because any economic advantage is fleeting at best).
Looking at the data and related past experience, this looks like a pretty solid bet (despite the "risk" being hard to quantify).
Heuristic detection is iffy IMO, because while this might look trivial now (=> before cheaters optimize for it) false positives could easily ruin the user experience after a few rounds of cat & mouse: Even if you manage to keep sensitivity high (detecting >90% of cheaters), if you have like single digit percentages of cheaters and false positives, a lot of your bans are innocent.
If you keep the heuristics "tolerant", on the other had, you end up perpetually chasing in a cat-and-mouse game, and a lot of cheaters go undetected inbetween detection upgrades.
I feel heuristic detection is a "metagame" that developers don't really want to engage in, because you basically can't really win and it's perpetual work/spending.
Baiting alone is not a reliable long-term solution, because it both interferes with competitive games (a lot) and because it requires you to basically stay on top of a captcha escalation (especially once cheaters limit themselves to "realistic" reaction time constraints), and this is a bad position to be in (because it means continuous effort for the developer).
The most helpful approach in my view is to make fresh accounts expensive for cheaters so they can't iterate easily; if the game developer can extract profit from such ban circumvention attempts then all the better.
This is him, at least according to that account:
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=georgehotz