Eh, this seems to just promote armchair quarterbacking. What moved voters is an issue for the campaigns to track. We should listen to what the campaigns say about what we care about.
It's free as long as Cash.app wants to maintain it. I'd rather there'd be no incentive to complicate the tax code such that many people need to hire accountants to figure it out.
Slight correction: the well-informed nerds of today know this, but average person doesn't have the interest, math background, or software development experience to really grok it. What a time to be alive! Haha. Things keep getting weirder.
Even "We know that" in "we" are a minority it would seem. The majority is convinced about scaling laws and an acquired deeper meaning in LLMs and that LLMs already exhibit sparks of AGI and what not.
Or rather, I have an unending stream of callers with similar-sounding voices who all want to make chirpy persuasive arguments in favor of Mr Altman's interests.
It should do that, because it's still not actually an intelligence. It's a tool that is figuring out what to say in response that sounds intelligent - and will often succeed!
There's an incentive problem here because litigation is so expensive. If the fine is large enough, it becomes more and more worth it for the company to fight it in court - and therefore more expensive to the regulatory agency's legal budget. The only folks who benefit from it going to court are private lawyers.
Whereas, settling meets the company's incentives (eliminating uncertainty), meets the regulator's incentives (bad behavior is stopped locally). The moral hazard created by making fraud seem less risky (because the punishments aren't that bad) is born by the public.
The solution here would be to limit the possible legal shenanigans that companies can use to increase the cost of taking a case to trial.
The author of this is presenting their view and you have hours of content to watch about this if you want to dig into it. One problem is that "lab leak," as Peter says, means a bunch of amalgamated theories. It's hard to discuss this without going through in depth, which is what this debate tried to do.
> is it fine to work on open source projects at Meta, or is it bad because Meta is bad?
I think OP would say its better to work on open source at Meta than closed source at Meta, and we should celebrate someone being paid to write open source. We can also condemn their specific employer while not denigrating their open source compensation.
re your second point, looking at this thread, "what is open source" is taking up a lot of the brainspace.
> re your second point, looking at this thread, "what is open source" is taking up a lot of the brainspace.
A lot of those discussions are not about the definition of open source (but something closely related, like "does it suck that it is difficult to get a new open source license OSI-approved?" or "should the JSON license be OSI-approved?", etc).
But "open source" is defined, has been for a while, and those who disagree with the meaning and would like to merge "source available" and "open source" are just fighting a useless fight IMO.
And really, in the featured article, the author clearly says "I will redefine 'open source' so that I don't have to say that I was wrong in my toot and in my book". To me it's like if I tooted "my favourite color in the visible spectrum is microwave", got pissed at people telling me that "microwave" is not in the "visible spectrum", and wrote a whole definition section explaining why I can't accept that I was wrong.
Oh, so it would make it even easier to just accept that the toot had some "unfortunate wording" in that respect.
Again, I do understand the other points. I have a lot of frustrations as a maintainer of (much smaller) open source projects (e.g. all those people that believe I work for them for free and who can come complain and pressure me because of a missing feature they don't even consider contributing). But I think that redefining "open source" is not the solution. On the contrary, IMO we need people to understand the meaning of those licenses better.
Representatives have elections to determine how long they can serve; career civil servants have strong protections against firing but the downside is a challenging hiring process that can be very slow.
USDS's willingness to use term hires makes hiring folks in easier, in addition to ensuring that the office doesn't become stagnant.
> we let them post an RFP that basically says do this thing in this amount of time for this amount of money with payment after we get the “thing” in time.
These exist; they are called "firm fixed price" contracts. You still have to write the contract correctly to be outcomes focused, and that can be hard when you don't know until building/testing if you are building the right thing.[1]
