None of the billionaires got that way by throwing money at egg studies. Bold to think they'd just start doing it now.
Insurance companies don't fund medical research AFAIK? But if they did, it would be coming out of your premiums.
The US Government is not a reliable source of research or funding these days.
Universities are generally looking for subjects that will further their prestige and expand the frontiers as they understand them. This isn't that. And they, too, have funding issues, tracing in many ways right back to the government.
Then your issue is not the S&P methodology, which despite changes in detail remains, as you've said, aimed at filtering out undesirable companies from the index. Your issue is that you want us to believe your favorite tech stocks, which are both wildly unprofitable and have P:S ratios that defy rational investment, are somehow desirable immediate additions to the index. And your argument for why this should be is a lofty claim that "the market environment has changed."
You believe in brand power over numbers. Which is your prerogative. But it's not how the S&P is managed.
Because it's selective, the S&P by definition does not reflect the actual market. It reflects a subset of it.
If you're comfortable with this notion of what the S&P does, then you ought to be comfortable with S&P applying the same methodology they've always used. There are other indexes you can reference if this particular sampling of the market isn't to your personal liking.
A business that can bring in a steady $2.5B a year doesn't seem like a bad business to me, so long as they can turn that into a profit. I think there ought to be a recognized place in the ecosystem for this sort of thing, and for me their independence from the gigacorps is a major feature.
I thought the AI art was okay, actually! For AI art.
For me it's contextual. In the case of engineering presentations in particular, I'll live with some AI art if it means less reading off of fifteen-bullet-point wall-to-wall text slides. But I always prefer and appreciate non-AI art – even stock art, if employed judiciously.
If, say, a consultant or outside speaker brings in a dripping-with-AI-art slide deck to talk about AI – now that I consider the height of cringe.
Haven't read the book, but points two and three definitely struck some bells in the back clocktowers of my mind.
More generally, reading a bit of Orwell was inescapable in my schooling, but I sought out 1984 myself. I discovered I had kind of a thing for both utopias and dystopias.
And as I contemplate things I might write or compose, I do note that outrage towards this regime is very much in the mix of my motivations.
But you cannot predict a priori what that deterministic output will be – and in a real-life situation you will not be operating in deterministic conditions.
> This bug is categorically distinct from hallucinations.
Is it?
> after using it for months you get a ‘feel’ for what kind of mistakes it makes, when to watch it more closely, when to give it more permissions or a longer leash.
Do you really?
> This class of bug seems to be in the harness, not in the model itself.
I think people are using the term "harness" too indiscriminately. What do you mean by harness in this case? Just Claude Code, or...?
> It’s somehow labelling internal reasoning messages as coming from the user, which is why the model is so confident that “No, you said that.”
How do you know? Because it looks to me like it could be a straightforward hallucination, compounded by the agent deciding it was OK to take a shortcut that you really wish it hadn't.
For me, this category of error is expected, and I question whether your months of experience have really given you the knowledge about LLM behavior that you think it has. You have to remember at all times that you are dealing with an unpredictable system, and a context that, at least from my black-box perspective, is essentially flat.
I think it might be a bad thing. I'm no stranger to math or computer science, but even after staring at the front page for a minute I was ready to dismiss this as the ravings of a lunatic.
It's like they had the idea of marketing this like a software project, not realizing that most front pages of software projects are utter bunk as well. It introduces terminology and syntax with no motivation or explanation.
Even once trying to get into "Quick Start" and "Specification" I was still mystified as to what it is or why I should want to play with it, or care. I had to go to the link mentioned upthread to get any sense of what this was or how it worked.
I think it's just badly written.
That being said, what seems to be proposed is a structure and calculus that are an alternative to lambda-calculus. The structures, as you can probably guess from the picture, are binary trees, ostensibly unlabeled except that there is significance to the ordering of the children. The calculus appears to be rules about how trees can be "reduced", and there is where the analogy to lambda calculus comes in.
Hopefully someone who actually knows this stuff can see whether I managed to get all that right – because I promise you, none of that understanding came from the website.
1. The Register reports OpenAI is well ahead of Anthropic in B2B contracts. It's Anthropic playing catch-up, not OpenAI.
2. In any case, the announcement strongly suggests that customer acquisition had little to do with this. The stated purpose of the acquisition, as I read it, is an acquisition (plus acquihire?) to bolster their Codex product.
3. But if they were hoping for some developer goodwill as a secondary effect... well, see my note above.
I went to a James Gosling talk where he excoriated the Emacs users in his audience for clinging to outdated technology and not using a state-of-the-art IDE.
But the IDE he was hawking wasn't Eclipse. I think it was Sun Studio.
As a Mayflower descendant I would scarcely say that. But the fact that you offer cheap platitudes and tales from hundreds of years ago to justify why it's OK to consider why the current bombing and slaughter is good for our work-life balance remains astonishingly tone-deaf. This is absolutely a you problem.
There's no lemonade to be found here at this time. What there is to be found are a bunch of tone-deaf people who seem utterly ignorant and indifferent to the war's reality.
Insurance companies don't fund medical research AFAIK? But if they did, it would be coming out of your premiums.
The US Government is not a reliable source of research or funding these days.
Universities are generally looking for subjects that will further their prestige and expand the frontiers as they understand them. This isn't that. And they, too, have funding issues, tracing in many ways right back to the government.