I'm unsure what SpaceX's weighting would be in QQQ but with Tesla being <3.54% weighting it would take both companies being 0s within a year to offset the cost in taxes from reweighting...
Candidly, while I understand the need for some amount of redundancy, I'm curious what this level of redundancy adds in terms of complexity to the system of a whole and whether or not that complexity-add almost outweighs the higher redundancy. I'm sure NASA has calculated the trade off, but I'd be curious to see the thoughts behind that.
I feel in a similar vein when learning of certain aircraft accidents over the years, where it feels like the redundancy of certain systems and the complexity it adds has been the indirect cause of accidents instead of preventing them. I suppose there's not really a way to quantify the accidents that it's prevent to be able to compare them directly.
To be fair, delineating between benevolent and malevolent pen-testing and cybersecurity purposes is practically impossible since the only difference is the user's intentions. I am entirely unsurprised (and would expect) that as models improve the amount to which widely available models will be prohibited from cybersecurity purposes will only increase.
Not to say I see this as the right approach, in theory the two forces would balance each other out as both white hats and black hats would have access to the same technology, but I can understand the hesitancy from Anthropic and others.
Basically every single old bug report I've ever seen is essentially a red-herring that is usually not able to be reproduced anymore after N years and takes away time from focusing on newer and more solvable issues. I don't see the issue with removing that noise if it's no longer being reported, but to each their own I suppose.
While I fundamentally agree with the basis of compute getting cheaper by the year, I think a missed consideration here is the fact that these models are also requiring exponentially more compute with each iteration to train, in a way that arguably has outscaled the advances in compute.
Whether a generalized and broadly usable model will be able to trained within some N multiple of our current compute availability allowing the price to come down with iterative compute advances is yet to be seen. With the current race to the top in terms of SOTA models and increasingly iteratively smaller improvements on previous generations, I have a feeling the scaling need for compute will outpace the improvements in our hardware architecture, and that's if Moore's law even holds as we start to reach the bounds of physics and not engineering.
However as it stands today, essentially none of these providers are profitable so it's really a question of whether that disconnect will come within their current runway or not and they'll be required to increase their price point to stay alive and/or raise more capital. It's pure conjecture either way.
Circularly passing around tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for things which don't exist and may never exist to fund a technology that hasn't A. lived up to the hype they've marketed and B. proven any strategy to breakeven is fundamentally not that much different than the way in which Enron strategically boasted their revenue numbers by passing the money between shell corporations that their CFO created.
The main difference of course being that these are actual companies as opposed to just entities intently designed to inflate the apparent financials. While it seems like that difference means this situation is perfectly fine as compared with the fraudulent case of Enron, the net effect is still the same; these companies are posting crazy quarter over quarter revenue growth, sending their stock prices to crazy highs and P/E multiples, while the insiders are cashing out to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars.
I don't really see how exactly you're trying to make the argument that it may or may not be a bubble, it objectively meets the definition of a bubble in the traditional economic sense (when an asset's market price surges significantly above its intrinsic value, driven by speculative behavior rather than fundamental factors). These companies are massively overvalued on the speculative value of AI, despite AI having not yet shown much economic viability for actual profit (not just revenue).
Worse yet, it's not just one company with inflated numbers, it's pretty much the entire top end of the market. To compare it to the dot com bubble wouldn't be a stretch, it'd basically be apples to apples as far as I see it.
Moreover, one thing NIH syndrome handwavers miss is that developing a custom situation-specific solution allows you to expand your knowledge in that discipline, create a more tailored solution, and avoid supply chain vulnerabilities that can come with using third-party packages. In my experience a handbuilt solution to a problem is going to be much more efficient in most cases than OSS out there, except in spot instances where the scale of the task is not able to be achieved in a small amount of code (e.g. a versatile graphing library), although these are /very/ few and far between.
Stocks are not completely nondeterministic games of chance, which is why most people who hold properly diversified stock portfolios have seen long-term growth instead of loss. That's probably why people don't call it gambling.
Yikes, yeah- on second thought it does seem sarcastic.
It's just so difficult to tell with Tesla because it certainly does have a certain portion of the population that would have posted the original comment entirely unironically.
Their spending has 10x'd since 2010, yet their traffic and scope remains relatively the same. This reeks of mismanagement and overspending. That being said, I more-so dislike their wording they use to gather the donations more than anything else, as I said, it feels disingenuous. I'm not entirely sure what the original parent comment was on about when he stated they were; "biased, corrupt, etc.", but my gripe with the Wikimedia foundation is the profiteering of community-generated content, with dubious expenditures that don't seem to actually advance the wiki itself, via dishonest means (and don't say that nobody is profiteering just because they're a non-profit, I'm sure the money is ending up at least partially in someones pockets). In the same vein, I wouldn't donate to wikimedia for the same reason I wouldn't give money to a broke alcoholic, if the reason you need money is because you're spending too much on the wrong things, that's not really a cause worthy of anybody's money. (All of this being IMO, obviously)