In gold, you trust that everyone is believing gold has value. And that it is commmon knowledge (in the logic sense [0])

Saying that gold has no more or less inherent monetary value than fiat currency assuming a magic wand that can change a large percentage of people's belief.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)

Then Lenin concluded that if you will always have concentration of power and some folks doing centralized planning, it might well be the state.

They will die, for some definitions of death -- I don't think they disappear, but they should be a niche, rather than the dominant doctrine.

- Hyperscaling “we are going to serve billions of people in our applications”, which is becoming increasing unlikely as regional tech companies become more dominant than than the global one (this one is as much about geopolitics as technology)

- Operations is hard, in which case non-frontier models should be increasingly capable. Devops for small-ish deployment is one of the few cases where it is hard to clam you need deep expertise and AI can’t do it. Previously, the claim is that you need people specialized in ops, which is expensive. Now…

My prediction is that not just cloud LLM, but cloud business general will have to change. Not yet in the next 5 years, but probably 8-20 years-ish

https://professorrobertpape.substack.com/

https://escalationtrap.substack.com

I would rather not paraphrasing or rewrite in my interpretation too much, as the topic is difficult enough as-is. But the short version is that the mainstream analysis of "worst case" is nowhere near his level of worst-case scenario and that the US has no control of the situations any more (the US can still control its actions, but Iran is already emboldened enough to take actions on its own strategic plan). The worst-case scenario has Iran with nuke as the baseline, and Iran also growing to be the dominant regional power in Middle East, on-par with Russian in the peak strength in 2010s.

A standard situation of 1% positive rate and even if your diagnosis method having 90% accuracy (for both sensitivity and specificity), more than 90% of the positive detection would be false positive.

Though I don't think I will be able to cite an official document stating Al Chop is a Snoopy fan :-), so there's that.

The current median age of China is about 40, which is not great for their context, but a world apart from 52.

This sentence has way too many assumptions doing the heavy lifting.

“Pure logic machines” is not a thing because literally, there are things that are uncomputable (both in the sense of Turing machine’s uncomputability, and in the sense that some functions are out of scope for a finite being to compute, think of Busy Beaver)

To put it the other way, your assumption is that machines (as we commonly uses the term, rather than scifi Terminator”) are more energy efficient than human in understanding the universe. We do not have any evidence nor priori for that assumption.

The message is very deliberate and has been gradually more focused on the “unification” aspect since at least 2014-2015.

This is the author’s own description of his expertise.

I have to look it up since I am not able to validate (by myself) the very strong claim he made in the beginning paragraph. I am comfortable not reading the rest. The claim is:

> Our knowledge has advanced to the point where, if we had a safe and reliable means of modifying genes in embryos, we could literally create superbabies. Children that would live multiple decades longer than their non-engineered peers, have the raw intellectual horsepower to do Nobel prize worthy scientific research, and very rarely suffer from depression or other mental health disorders.

Though my maths seems to be wrong as well!