Don't they charge cloud vendors who sell LLAMA models on their platform? My understanding is that is part of the licensing agreement. Its more like:

1. Spend billions on a product.

2. Make it free to work with and charge to commercialize it.

3. Profit

Data is the wrong approach to develop reasoning. You we don't want LLM's to simply memorize 3x3 = 9 we want them to understand that 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 therefore 3x3 = 9 (obviously a trivial example). If they have developed reasoning very few examples should be needed.

The way I see it reasoning is actually the ability of the model to design and train smaller models that can learn with very few examples.

> If they have developed reasoning very few examples should be needed.

Yes, once the modules for reasoning have converged, it will take very few examples for it to update to new types of reasoning. But to develop those modules from scratch requires large amounts of examples that overtax its ability to memorize. We see this pattern in the "grokking" papers. Memorization happens first, then "grokking" (god I hate that word).

It's not like humans bootstrap reasoning out of nothing. We have a billion years of evolution that encoded the right inductive biases in our developmental pathways to quickly converge on the structures for reasoning. Training an LLM from scratch is like recapitulating the entire history of evolution in a few months.

My understanding is that, if you train these enough, it becomes likely to develop efficient compressions— which “reasoning” would be.

To exist on the internet you need to pay Google. Google is essentially the government of the open web. The problem is that government like monopolies do arise especially when there are network effects.

We need to regulate search and app stores like it is a public utility. Pricing should be dutch auction or something provably fair. 20-30% for in-app purchases is obviously insane when credit cards do 1.5-3.5%.

I worry that the government will not do sensible regulations and instead play investment banker and try to create spin off companies.

Credit card companies do one thing - process payments. What cut do VOD or music hosting sites take? Bandcamp takes 15%. eBay takes 15% on things they never physically touch. It’s hard finding hard data, but it seems like YouTube, on average charges $15CPM and pays $5CPM to the highest paid YouTubers. What is the value of download hosting and store platform?

If the app is free they still have to maintain the app store. I have a free app apple checks it. Running an app store is part of the cost of the phone. No one would buy the phone if they couldn't download apps.

If they must charge 20% why don't they also let apps take credit cards? 20% is for the payment, its a tax. Why should Spotify have to pay 20% and Apple music effectively doesn't.

Let's figure it out?

Let's allow anyone to do in-app purchases, and app stores, then the market would tell us. Currently, we need to trust these quasi-monopolies that there is no way they can make it cheaper (and for some strange reason still, they don't want to open things up).

> Let's allow anyone to do in-app purchases, and app stores, then the market would tell us.

Whats stopping that now on Android? I have a second app store on my phone.

The question then becomes: Are users going to be willing to pay google (or whatever search) now instead?

I don't think the vast majority of the internet understands how the business model of the internet works.

Not OP but as a public utility it would be paid for through both taxes and usage

The actual computational resources required to provide search would be a fraction of Google’s operating costs

Added benefit would be pitting private providers against each other so they’re incentivised to provide better outcomes, as opposed to the current decoupling of utility and market position

The current situation is immensely wasteful of everyone’s time and resources (Alphabet shareholders aside)

It really is a Standard Oil situation, but as it’s just inflaming - but not halting -the global economy, it’s been flying under regulators’ radar until a few years ago

No moat is too wide for the flick of sufficiently powerful pens, business models be damned

Let them make profit. We probably should have to pay for traffic and advertisement on the web. But regulate it so that there cannot be price gouging. For instance there are maximum interest chargeable on loans. You should be able to loan money at interest but there is a point where you are just using your power to economically exploit others. Especially if there is no option.

What are you even talking about? you actually do not need to pay Google a dime to be on the Internet, if you have good SEO you can be on the top of the page

Why does anyone pay google to advertise? Most people don't have adblocker they get a paid for link often.

There are also a range of topics google will not return the best ranked information. There are a ton of political issues (due to advertiser pressure) where the different results are huge when you search in duckduckgo vs google. This is monopoly power to decide what gets seen and what doesn't get seen.

Ironically, this benefits Apple so much.

How? They are prohibited from using it in the license.

Thanks for the tip!

Good code "is isolated enough that rewriting it won’t cost absurd hours." This is the hard part.

Yes, and it also is the point I think most people here are missing.

This is uncharitable. The GP's comment is short. What people have an opinion about is, "Give up on 'good code'" and, "working code, code that pays the bills ... code you can throw away easily, code that you are wholly unattached to".

big claims require big justifications. I can't just go out and say "C++ is better than Javascript" and expect people to not scrutinize me because "well it was a short comment".

But hey, they do justify it in responses. So maybe they are indeed playing to their philosophy of "work fast"

Tuple is great! It would be crazy cool if we could share multiple screens at the same time. What could be cool as well is if I can share a viewable only screen to the person I'm pairing with while they share with me their regular tuple screen.

Also, Tuple is waaay better than what we use when interviewing people with. Maybe some sort of hot seat feature where we could get people to download Tuple and interview/pair with them there.

Looks like their faq under pricing says you can do this now! I wonder if it would work for interviews that have more than one interviewer? I might check this out for some of our needs too.

Automobiles are the main factor. Cars made it possible for single family home culture -> cities were designed around cars -> now this culture is the ideal as it is what cities are explicitly designed for.

Self driving will be an interesting addition to the mix. We will probably come up with new cultures around that technology.

The only way to really solve this is to follow the money. There will always be vulnerabilities but whether it's profitable to exploit them is another story. Ads move fast but money moves slow.

The victims are good publishers ( miss out on ad dollars that would have gone their way) and advertisers (who have generally moved their money to walled gardens where there isn't an agency incentive problem).

Most of the ad industry believes that because they use a 3rd party impression or click tracking they are safe from these attacks. This article outlines how ad fraud operations find vulnerabilities in those technologies that the ad industry trusts. 3rd party verification does not mean you have avoided fraud.

I didn't just leave it at impression and click tracking though.

To track from impression to purchase you would probably be using one 3rd party service. Google has the best capabilities but you are still relying on them to not have any vulnerabilities and their incentives of selling adds and verifying them for you aligned.