Labor saving technology does not create enough alternative jobs to employ all those that it displaced, otherwise it wouldn't be labor saving.

Instead, the surplus created by these technologies allows that society to deploy labor on less immediately necessary jobs. These jobs weren't created by the technology, they were always there, but society did not have the resources to staff them (think education, research, academia, merchants, etc.)

This dynamic has been true since pre-historic times, so you'll need some extraordinary evidence if you want us to believe this time is different.

I'm a dual citizen of Portugal and Brazil and I live in the US now, so that's my linguistic background. (Also studied bits of French, Russian, Latin and Greek.)

> Doing what I describe for languages that are similar is easier than languages that are very different, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Not only are your reasons not obvious, your conclusion is actually wrong.

If the goal is to create an LLM with minimal Brazilian Portuguese bias (which was one of their main goals), it might actually make more sense to train it in any other language BUT Brazilian Portuguese (say, English), then fine-tune it for European Portuguese.

LLM's have shown to be very good at generalizing across languages (the transformer architecture literally comes from work on translators IIRC).

And if the first 80% doesn't bias the language after post-training (which I think is what you're claiming) why not go for English or a mixture of languages, which is essentially what they did by starting with EuroLLM?

I don't think VISA/Mastercard takes such a fee? (They'd be some of the biggest companies in the world if they did.)

The fees they charge are actually fractions of a percent, the rest are charged by the card issuer, which is usually your bank.

You could, in theory, use the VISA network and not pay those fees to a card issuer.

It's quite the leap, but that's science communication for you!

This only really matters for competitive games though, so it's not surprising it wasn't prioritized.

It might be harder to find an engine from the early 2010's that didn't tie at least some physics to FPS.

It is not. We've had semiconductor diodes since 1874, but it took many decades to develop the solid state physics to understand how they worked and how to extend them. Crucially, you need some understanding of quantum theory (energy levels, Fermi distributions, etc), which was not developed until the 20s and 30s.

Even after they had the physics down, Shockley still spent over a decade unsuccessfully trying to get a FET to work (due to trapped charges which were not understood until the 50s). This is partially why the experimentalists, Bardeen and Brattain, are quoted alongside Shockley as the inventors of the transistor, even though Shockley had come up with a lot of the theory years before.

There's no question in my mind that American industry and capital markets were far better at pivoting to this new industry though.

It's very much political and it's a joke to pretend otherwise.

Certainly Jensen seemed to have an extremely long view on this burgeoning machine learning market in the early 2010's.

And it's set by the dielectric, not the conducting material.

Grocery stores aren't thieves, they're largely pretty terrible businesses with extremely thin margins.

But, to engage with your ridiculous bait and switch: whether I or the thief have $20 is irrelevant to the commerce as he'll presumably spend it at the market too, so even this ridiculously contrived example falls flat on its face.

> rich person bids up Tesla stock and makes Elon into a billionaire off a PE of 317 now, thin air pumped into the balloon in other words with all this money tied up in overpriced TSLA stock than empowering real work in the economy.

Here you go again with some ridiculously biased example, but I'll engage with it for your own sake: money that's invested doesn't just disappear, it goes into the pockets of employees and suppliers or gets reinvested in some other way, continuing the cycle.

> What do you believe the role of government is?

Limited.

> They can't do anything about cartel behavior.

Incorrect, several states have passed their own antitrust laws, there's nothing that limits it to the federal government.

> The government engages in commerce all the time. If we took that argument to its logical conclusion there would be no libraries as they compete with book stores. There would be no armies as they compete with Blackrock mercenaries. No public transit as it competes with private transit. No public events as that competes with ticketmaster. No public schools. No public universities. No scientific research grants. No sheltering or feeding the poor. No treating the sick. No treating veterans. No bridges. No roads. No harbors....

I do think the government should get out of many of those, so your argument doesn't really land for me.

> No, it seems a big role in this country for government is facilitating conditions for commerce.

I don't see how the government driving out competition by running its own grocery stores, presumably at a loss, is "facilitating conditions for commerce".