Also fun fact: a lot of solar panels in Finland are mounted vertically to walls rather than rooftops. That's because we're so far north that the sun just hangs around the horizon rather than going directly overhead. You end up catching more sunlight pointing directly south.
Budgeting for over a month without power is unheard of. Extreme scenarios ("dunkelflaute") are measured on the order of hours, maybe days, and they get shorter and less frequent the larger the grid is.
At least for nuclear, no. The cost is overwhelmingly in the construction rather than the operation so it makes sense to run it all the time. With diverse green sources while their fluctuations are less correlated than just adding more solar you still have the potential for all of them to have a lull at the same time.
Drug design is hard because it’s a system problem not a molecule-protein interaction problem.
At one point the gold standard for generating leads was using combinatorial chemistry to experimentally screen through millions of compounds.
I’m not sure how wide-spread that is any more; it used a lot of reagents. And it ran into the real bottleneck: lead generation tells you little to nothing about the efficacy, toxicity, and side effects of a drug or biologic in actual humans.
In silicon will never do a better job at lead generation than combinatorial chemistry. It could help with the real bottleneck. But… there just isn’t a lot of high quality training data on this.
They’ve been pushing ML approaches to drug design since at least the early 2010s. The approach has evolved with the trends in ML. Overall, I think the results have been very mixed; much like the traditional pharma pipeline.
> At one point the gold standard for generating leads was using combinatorial chemistry to experimentally screen through millions of compounds.
I don't think this was ever the gold standard. I mean, some companies did employ these approaches, but they were generally viewed as low-quality, brute-force approaches (at least at the handful of companies I was associated with).
If you invent the ability to tragedise a particular commons, and you also do almost all of the work of turning the crank to make the commons tragic, and then you sit there benefiting from the tragedy of the commons while saying “we may be profiting from it, but the tragedy of the commons is not our problem”, eventually we will figure out what you’re up to.
Nothing these LLM companies are doing is comparable to a flying car. Perhaps we could ask whether a company making flying monkeys should care about the economic fortunes of bipedal monkeys.
Of course it is. It's a brand new technology with a great deal of potential and some caveats. Something like this has not existed in the history of humanity to date. It's truly mind boggling that a large chunk of humanity's corpus can be compressed to just a trillion bytes, then queried and recombined at whim. Heck, a flying car is less revolutionary.
What exactly would you want to regulate? And keep in mind that regulations are very effective at protecting incumbents, which, as of right now, also includes openAI.
What exactly would you be advocating for? That LLMs can't be used to generate mathematical proofs? It's not even a case of intellectual theft, academic papers are in the public domain or can be accessed through a subscription.
For my sanity I don't follow US politics too closely, if "super intelligence" is truly being pushed hard then it seems reasonable to assume the reason why is to assert control of truth. Who are you to disagree with Super Intelligence when it tells you that Haitians are eating dogs?
I’m happy he’s dumb. If he were smart, he’d be way better at corruption. His lowbrow corruption of scam meme coins and fleecing tech CEOs for a couple million is pretty benign versus what an actually smart person could do.
No. His real innovation was shamelessness. A lot of high society functions on these "gentlemen agreements" where you can theoretically get away with murder but it'd be rather uncouth of you to do so. He doesn't care and it's led him very very far in life.
Yeah I wouldn’t be so happy about that. He’s that dumb because he was chosen for the dumbness and plausible deniability
There are much more incidious actors behind the scenes doing corruption at levels we can’t fathom whole Donald is the blunt force tool absorbing all the attention and negative press with his goofy corruption
I definitely can't use the word "benign" given the immense damage to our culture, economy, and national standing he's done, but directionally agreed. We're fortunate he's an actual stupid person.
You're underselling decades of preparation from conservatives trying to lead to exactly this point. Pretending like it's just a Trump issue is incredibly myopic. Trump didn't write Project 2025 and he couldn't implement it alone. Furthermore, we have a significant portion of the voting public who fully support this. The fact that it's Trump's 3rd election and second win should tell you there's something deeply wrong with Republican voters. Trump is just the latest symptom of the sickness of this country.
How could you possibly ever draw a line? It's Brandolini's law. It's flooding the zone. It's loyalty tests. It happens so frequently that there is no energy to focus on any one specific crime. It's all diffused under an umbrella of criminal shit. And each additional one is just one more thing thrown onto the pile no one will ever look into or prosecute because there's simply too much to dig into.
I also don't disagree with any of this. I think in this particular instance, we know that the man is truly, unfathomably technologically ignorant. Someone probably gave him a demo of ChatGPT (along with all the obvious lobbying he's been on the receiving end) and it just melted his brain and he's all-in, thoroughly convinced it's actually superintelligence and thinking he coined the term.
Right. No one believes he's smart enough to have engineered any of this, he's just a corrupt buffoon who was in the right place at the right time with the right amount of reality TV fame to benefit from all you just said.
That's the only bright point about all this. Trump is kind of a 1000 year perfect storm of fame, corruption, and psychopathy; and he's fast approaching his expiration date.
I don't expect any of us will live long enough to see a similar skid-mark on the underwear of humanity.
This is where I disagree with you. The rot and infection in our country isn't Trump. Trump is the symptom. It's the people willing to vote for someone like Trump (three fucking times) that represent the real issue with our country. Trump will die in the next 5-20 years. His supporters will not. And they will continue to support degeneracy and racism and bigotry. They will continue to support hurting people they think deserve to be hurt. Conservative ideology is ultimately the problem and most folks dismiss it as a non-issue.
We are not of a like mind wanting the same outcomes just with different paths of reaching it. Conservatives want a country defined by "natural" hierarchies. "Some people 'deserve' to be on the bottom and a permanent sub-class of existence so me and my people can rightfully be above them".
You see it all the time among conservatives. Look at Dying of Whiteness. Trevor was willing to die of a preventable illness because he didn't want to help "Mexicans" or "Welfare Queens".
> Debates raged in Tennessee around the same time about the state’s participation in the Affordable Care Act and the related expansion of Medicaid coverage. Had Trevor lived a thirty-nine-minute drive away in neighboring Kentucky, he might have topped the list of candidates for expensive medications called polymerase inhibitors, a lifesaving liver transplant, or other forms of treatment and support. Kentucky adopted the ACA and began the expansion in 2013, while Tennessee’s legislature repeatedly blocked Obama-era health care reforms.
> Even on death’s doorstep, Trevor was not angry. In fact, he staunchly supported the stance promoted by his elected officials. “Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it,” he told me. “I would rather die.” When I asked him why he felt this way even as he faced severe illness, he explained: “We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.”
> At the most basic level, Trevor died of the toxic effects of liver damage caused by hepatitis C. Yet Trevor’s deteriorating condition resulted also from the toxic effects of dogma. Dogma that told him that governmental assistance in any form was evil and not to be trusted, even when the assistance came in the form of federal contracts with private health insurance or pharmaceutical companies, or from expanded communal safety nets. Dogma that, as he made abundantly clear, aligned with beliefs about a racial hierarchy that overtly and implicitly aimed to keep white Americans hovering above Mexicans, welfare queens, and nonwhite others. Dogma suggesting to Trevor that minority groups received lavish benefits from the state, even though he himself lived and died on a low-income budget with state assistance. Trevor voiced a literal willingness to die for his place in this hierarchy, rather than participate in a system that might put him on the same plane as immigrants or racial minorities.
This is the disease we are fighting against. Bigotry which supersedes self preservation. They hate so fucking much they are willing to die to make someone else suffer. Fuck conservatism and fuck conservatives. They uniquely make our world a worse place for everyone to exist in.
> Furthermore, we have a significant portion of the voting public who fully support this.
Define "significant" - Trump has the worst approval rating of any president ever measured. The "conservative coalition" was always going to Balkanize, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that, and they were unpopular before but now they're EXTREMELY unpopular.
I mean, "a conservative win" in a country where 1/3 of people have no religious preference, 1/5 marriages is multi-racial and acceptance of legalized gay marriage is in the 70's. Winning a battle isn't winning the war, they were deluding themselves into thinking they were going to "reshape" anything.
Now they've outed themselves as nutcases, but crucially, nutcases who aren't delivering on the economic promises that were cover for their fascistic impulses, in a coalition that was obviously going to implode once they reached power.
Maybe looking back, this will be seen as the "dead cat bounce" of Conservatism than anything else.
You have to remember exactly how few people are represented by current US policies. They are willing to elect increasingly fringe candidates, "Just to feel something", in the hopes that something will change for them.
The way I broadly think of it is that the left has won the culture and the right has won the economy. But not for the entire right, just the ultra rich.
I don’t think the old “right is good for the economy” canard holds up today. It seems to be a holdover from disciplined fiscal conservatism in the 1980s; 40 trillion in debt, $6 gas, and a new and unpopular war are quickly eroding that talking point.
Just shows how effective conservative propaganda is. They are uniformly terrible for the economy and it is proven literally every time they have power. Even by the 80's conservatives were fucking over the economy. Nixon probably represents the most significant shift leading us to where we are today (See Nixonomics). That's late 60's and early 70's which "coincidentally" follows the realignment of parties after the Democratic party passed the Civil Rights Act.
Zooming out of the intradecade view, all the power they have won't ever put gay and trans people back in the closet any more than they can reverse interracial marriage. And all the social media outrage about billionaires will do nothing to reverse wealth inequality.
Social media outrage, no. But a state which doesn’t apply laws equally and consistently opens itself up to violence, a fraction of which will be directed at the billionaire class.
We only need to eat one, the rest will fall in line.
> as his brain melts he's lost most of his touch, but Trump does have a natural bullies intuitive understanding of how to use this type of dynamic. the winning move is to tell him to fuck off but that's not a battle a lot of people will want to pick with the president.
To shrug it off is just another way to avoid the confrontation, to make it seem not worth one's time. If the people destroying our future are imbeciles, what does this say about us?
Yes and knowledge of how terrible Leopold was is not uncommon, yes less well known than "Hitler was bad" but that's just about as close to a universally accepted truth as we've managed as a species, it's not a useful benchmark.
Mythos is what they thought was too dangerous to release, fable was what they made after they worked on cybersecurity detection. As they say in the notes, this version of sonnet now has a similar screening process
It sounds like you're thinking of cryptography, not general security.
The world uses many security products that have false positives and false negatives (firewalls, intrusion detections, wafs, fraud detection, spam...). Those aren't generally considered security through obscurity.
It's paired with rate limits, monitoring, account control, multiple classifiers, a deliberate safety margin, model design, and other things too.
(I think this was also why they faced the controversy over not having zdr in fable: they wanted to use logs to detect repeated attempts, etc. Possibly a bigger change with Opus/Sonnet is that it's zdr with the classifiers?)
The reason you see "dumb" refusals that "should clearly be allowed" is that they're using more traditional deterministic methods to deny prompts rather than just relying on the random LLM which you could bypass by luck.
The US also doesn't have free trade following the same criteria, labeling requirements differ by state, licensing regimes are different, the same kind of challenges that exist in Canada
How long is the hope those batteries will last? There's surely no way Finland can run off battery power for even one month, much less a whole winter.
edit: perhaps I misunderstood and your comment on batteries was more related to the reliability of wind?
reply