it is simply ridiculous that a ruinously expensive policy can be budget-neutral if the expense consists of wasted time rather than wasted money. But that's still a cost!
The best way is to be strong, sovereign, hard-working and deeply competent. Ideally with an uncanny ability to start ambitious infrastructure projects and finish them on budget and on time. Shout-out to our nuclear energy sector for nailing that. Do that and every other problem melts away.
I long for the halcyon days of early Web 2.0 when it was predicted that all APIs would work with everything and data and control would belong to the user. Oh well - that didn't happen.
300 milliseconds is like an eternity in computing, right? And so if you're talking about like our pitch is that we're not more than 300 milliseconds, that just shows you how the bar was so far past where it probably should have been for something.
And so what you realize is not only is this very hard to keep burn under control, but also it's just this is the inappropriate place to exercise spending review. Spending review has to come earlier. You have to have some concept of budgeting.
Those first jetliners truly did double the speed of what had come before them. And was they doubled the speed of air travel, the most important changes were on the ground. Hawaii was simply not a tourist destination before the speed of the jet.
This saturation can be seen more clearly for the GPT 5.6 Sol model, which also shows that increasing reasoning budgets can become uneconomical at some point.
You'll notice what I said was not use loops to ship the features that users want. We use loops to actually improve the codebase quality and we read all the code because we care about how it's architected and we care not just about the system architecture but what I would call the program design
But it's also your instruction budget is like if you give the model too many instructions and especially too many conflicting instructions and that's in your initial prompt and also like if you have a conversation you start going down a path and then you change your mind and you start going down a different you actually I don't want to do any of that I want to do this. It's like a it's a lot of computation the model has to do to notice that it has to ignore that whole thing.
The problem is we're in a world now where the capability of the model is a function of how much money you put into it. Basically, if you give it a budget of $10,000, it can do a lot more than what it can do with a budget of $10. Give it a budget of $10 million, you can do even more. At what budget should you evaluate these models? The policies that exist today don't really address that question.
my claim is the proper way to evaluate the models now is you either have some kind of budget for the benchmark whether it's tokens or cost or time or whatever or you plot the performance as a function of the amount of test time compute that's going into the model
and then the power and the cost and then you can double the performance but you cannot double down on the cost and and area. So those are the thing you have to give give way unless you find some new way of material new way of design.
I think part of the theory is like if you're building tools that are this complicated, you kind of want to have a 10 to 15 year time horizon on on building out these efforts.
it required a different way of thinking and the cognitive load might be a little higher but the output is dramatic and we have seen our best engineer double their output.
Because Enthropic saw it before Google. And then Google had Nano Banano and Gemini 3 which caused their user metrics to skyrocket and leadership at Google was like oh and then they started making the statement of we have to double compute every is it 6 months or I don't remember the exact number that they said.
And that risks giving the impression that basic constitutional rights and restraints on police and executive power that date back to the Founding are, actually, negotiable.
They actually had the budget and bought the stupid thing. Then they went through onboarding and invested their time etc etc. That is a crazy gauntlet that almost no one gets through.
Try a number of things, right? So, experiment with a number of things. Run a number of small experiments. Once you find something that works, double down on it and then keep doing it until it stops working, which is the step that a lot of people skip. Um, and then once it stops working, go back to the start and try a lot of small experiments again.
if you have to choose between, well, I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community, or I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community. A lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand.
probably 50% of the time, I would advise to a client, take 10 to 20% of your marketing budget and spend it on upgrading the call center. Pay the people too much. Get the best practitioners.
Like it seems to me right now you could do like a double blind test of the same prompt given to Grock Claude Gemini um Mistral Deep Seek. Do a double blind test. I bet most people wouldn't be able to tell which is which.
But the spike in interest rates require to do this would be huge. And the trade shock will cause a sharp recession, or worse, putting even more stress on the budget. A debt crisis is likely along the way as the US finds it impossible to roll over debt.
You Need a Budget (YNAB) is a simple to use (but sophisticated under the hood) bit of budgeting software that uses the principles of human habits and behavioral finance to make you more conscious and efficient in your spending.
These enormous costs are ultimately due to the same factor that has steadily driven down the cost of semiconductors: Moore’s Law, the observation that the number of components on an integrated circuit tends to double every two years.
But I have come to understand that the feeling of creative control is an illusion, that the songs are predetermined and have their own destiny, that they are not our own.
The proposition is that the cancellation of the bonds held by the central bank would decrease the amount of interest payments and thus the debt service of governments. And indeed, it would. But it would have another effect—namely, to decrease the revenues of the central bank and thus the profits that the central bank turns in to the government. This second effect would be exactly of the same size as the first, and the net effect on the government budget constraint would be equal to zero.
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.