The subject this post names, from the same vocabulary
the directory files beliefs under, and the words it uses that this site has seen
least often elsewhere. Posts are matched on those words alone —
nothing here is a summary of this one.
What is the underlying hardware capable of doing at its theoretical peak? And then you measure the delta between that theoretical maximum and what you have achieved.
Could this phrase or sentence or paragraph or section be improved, even a little? That is, can I make myself (on this very localized turf) make myself dislike it less?
I think some research, again it's correlational, shows that people who spend, you know, 5 hours a week with their grandchildren have improved memory. So that seems we don't know if it's causal, but it's interesting that those who spend more than 20 hours a week don't show this benefit. In fact, might show the opposite.
Between Hopper and Blackwell from the transistors themselves, call it 75%. It was 3 years apart. 75%. Blackwell is 50 times hopper. My point is architecture matters.
So even though the models have improved tremendously and if you give them an agentic task, they will just go for hours and move mountains for you. And then you ask for like a joke and it has a stupid joke. It's crappy joke from five years ago and it's because it's outside of the it's outside of the RL.
The internet is unique in the history of technology because there’s a list of things it improved (communication, access to information) but another list of things it likely made worse for almost everybody
this is a very deep truth about habits, which is a habit must be established before it can be improved. You know, it has to become the standard in your life before you can scale it up and optimize and turning it into something more. You need to standardize before you optimize.
The best book I read this year was also the last book I reviewed (and yes, I snuck the review under the wire for that reason): Bethany Jacobs's This Brutal Moon, the conclusion of the Kindom Trilogy that started with These Burning Stars. I thought the first two books of the series were interesting but flawed, but the conclusion blew me away and improved the entire trilogy in retrospect. Like all books I rate 10 out of 10, I'm sure a large part of my reaction is idiosyncratic, but two friends of mine also loved the conclusion so it's not just me.
The cost to discover and develop a drug today is orders of magnitude higher than in the 1950s. Despite this, the probability that a drug entering clinical trials will eventually reach the market has hardly improved in the intervening years.
A number of commentators have consistently predicted that solar cost improvements will level out “this year” since about 1990, and yet if anything deployment, cost decline, and the learning rate have only improved.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.