I’m not patriotic enough to spaff my compound interest opportunity on a bunch of dying tobacco, oil, & mineral extraction companies to put any of it to work in the FTSE250.

Do you mean that the EU spends 1/10th that, rather than Europe? Because France, Germany and the UK all spend €100-150bn each in grants depending on how you set your definition, and that’s atop the EU’s grant money.

Just eyeballing the figures across different countries, it looks like the USG distributes approximately the same amount in grants per capita as the EU & UK. Certainly not a 90% diff.

"Sharing knowledge" is one of the first phrases in the article, and highlighted as a key benefit of code review. But the loss to human-capital from this process is never examined in the post.

> Trivial reviews (typo fixes, small doc changes) cost 20 cents on average

They did around 25,000 of these runs (about 20% of total). So CF spent $5k in the period making language models run through PRs which were <10 lines long. I get that CF engineers are paid well, but the labour cost of having an intern/entry level engineer spend ~30-60s looking through these is likely close to $0.20, and that engineer builds some human-capital while they're at it.

“There’s more capital than good ideas to fund” has been a complaint from the likes of A16z & other VCs for a long time now. It’s why we ended up with stuff like NFTs getting funded.

Taylor Swift can’t realistically play more shows than she did during the Eras Tour, and it’s unlikely that she’d have sold a million seats in London if she were charging much more than she did.

Irrespective of AI, it's astounding that companies have been throwing $2bn/yr at marketing, and their analytics data on that spend is delayed 6-18 months. That's nearly 15% of their annual revenues spent on guesswork. What's been going on over at Hersheys?

[0] https://mastodon.social/@bagder

Whether the person doing the marketing was sincere about it or not is immaterial, since marketing is experienced almost entirely by the people consuming it, and not the people communicating it. What matters is if the audience is sincerely concerned by the message, and it's transparently the case that they were sincerely concerned by it.

You should expect this to be reflected in the labour market somewhere. Maybe not your own salary, but in somebody’s salary.

If you’re 10x more productive, someone is willing to pay you 10x as much as they were last year, because you’re producing 10x as much value as before.

Has your salary increased 10x?

There’s some kind of reverse-survivorship bias here. I’d never apply at Meta because their management does the “hire a bunch of excess people in the good times, so when Zuck‘s next inevitable efficiency-drive happens, the team is able to layoff lots of people while still staying operational” approach.

So I’d never make it into the Meta interview to ask that question in the first instance, and neither would anyone else who thinks of Meta in that way.

GameStop had revenues of $3bn last year and eBay was $10-12bn, so combined it's $13-15bn. A net income increase of 1.2bn on that gross is a tall order for M&A efficiencies. Especially difficult when the two companies have essentially zero operational crossover, besides business admin. It doesn't seem likely to me that merging eBay's accounting/legal departments into GME's (and similar efficiency gains) is going to save anything close to a billion across the two entities.

Why pass a thousand new laws when the existing laws have an enforcement mechanism?

If your attacker assumes that all or most software will be generated from language models, the time penalty is worth paying.

Expensive miscalculation.

It should be feasible to design vulnerabilities which look benign individually in training data, but when composed together in the agent plane & executed in a chain introduce an exploit.

There’s nothing technical really stopping that from existing right now. It’s just that nobody has put the effort in yet.

We're actively looking into alternatives outside of GitHub though.