I don't often watch football outside the world cup. I don't support any teams. But I know how football is meant to be played, and I was definitely annoyed about the hydration breaks.

Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?

Good regulation is good. Bad regulation is bad. Being anti-regulation is dogmatic.

Because creating things for others is a fulfilling way to live your life, and creates a richer society.

Valve does not want to maximize revenue from the controller sales. If they did, they would auction the controllers. That would get rid of scalpers, and ensure each controllers is sold at the highest number the market would bear. They are not doing that, which implies revenue-maximization is not their goal.

My intuition is that they are trying to improve the health of the gaming ecosystem because that benefits their core business which is selling games. For them it's important that some people who are more price-sensitive get this controller. Because those customers buy different games than those who would pay top dollar, and those games are important to Valve. And because they promote gaming in ways that don't bring revenue directly but do create harder to measure value.

No. That can be said about LLMs, but not about all forms of AI. The technique used is not a LLM.

Sadly we've bastardized the term AI that, if it ever meant anything, it's meaningless now. The currently most voted thread in this post discuses the topic.

You can also inherit talent, but "the descendants of those worthy are worthy" is a belief humanity spilled a lot of blood to get away from.

A terrible metric is _worse_ than no metric. A terrible metric can _only_ lead you in the wrong direction. "No metric" means saying we don't know, and that leads us to stop and reconsider. But we've taken "move fast and break things" as a mantra, and we'd rather run towards any direction than stay still.

Using LoC as a metric for quality of LLMs will promote LLMs that write more code. It's better to say we have no way to compare different LLMs than it is to say "let's use the LLMs that produced more LoC because at least we can measure that". We, as an industry, should be focusing on developing better metrics for quality, not on improving LLMs based on known-bad metrics. We should be turning to the computer scientists, not to the venture capitalists.

When a pundit talks about how many lines of code an LLM has created, we should lose all respect for them. It's as if someone talking about physics measured the phlogiston, or as if a doctor started measuring our skulls. We know these theories don't work, and anyone using them should be mocked.

There are very few from 2008-2012 which is when I was working on that.

In the first case, a third party came up with the idea, and you are subjecting yourselves to their idea. In the second case, it's your idea, and your friends are subjecting themselves to your idea. Really if you are proposing, there's always a bit of "your idea" there, but the "blame" can be shared with someone else who's not in the group.

What we are seeing here is checks and balances, working as intended.

It seems more plausible to me he actually doesn't have the gold.