(Not commenting on any other benchmarks, just this one.)

True, but leaders of large organizations always want to fix inefficiencies and presumably failing to. Kinda like saying "if humans stopped fighting wars, most of them would have better quality of life" -- people whose life quality is better at peacetime are already trying to avoid wars, and there's not much more they can do.

OTOH, AI is a practical step a CTO (or CEO or Board or whoever) can take to make the company more efficient (assuming the hype works out).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46782314

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Aren't they both searching various online sources for relevant information and feeding that into the LLM?

1) It's in the title: "The Price of Fame" implies that there are downsides to becoming famous, rather than there are downsides to having traits that might make you famous.

2) While the abstract merely claims "associated with" (which is correlation not causation), the phrase "beyond occupational factors" implies that the authors felt they removed important non-causal factors, hinting at likely causal relationship.

And yes, any causality implications are completely unfounded, and so this paper is of low quality.

1) A lot of informal (i.e., not in a scheduled meeting) chats are more valuable than meetings. They are much more rare when people WFH.

2) Many folks tend to be more distracted when WFH. TLs don't have a perfect vision into whether someone spent 4 hours on a bug (or a design doc) or 2 hours on the bug / design doc and 2 hours on online shopping / playing with kids.

It's quite confusing to me that none of the comments I saw in this thread don't discuss those factors (I'd be fine if people mentioned them and explained why they are not too important).

Obviously there are also factors in favor of WFH: commute costs, personal satisfaction (which may indirectly improve productivity and/or retention of the best people), noise in the workplace, lack of meeting rooms, etc. But it's far from obvious to me if, on balance, WFH or RTO works better for building a successful company.

Also, I'm wondering if any other manufacturer would make the crank and the drum from the same material. Wouldn't it be like $100 extra to make a stainless steel spider?

Feel free to come up with your own predictive model of whether someone is worth listening to. It's hard to compare such models fairly, but if you feel yours is better, it might be worth sharing.

$15B of real wealth is a large amount even for a powerful family, so I am surprised it's not a headline news in global media.

Obviously having something available during test time is more valuable than buried somewhere in the pretraining mixture. But in pretraining it happens presumably with high probability (why wouldn't coding models pretrain on the entire github), while in test time it apparently happened only very occasionally?

- Did he take the offer or not? - Did he forfeit the vested shares because he took the offer or because he didn't? - What was he offered in return for forfeiting the vested shares? - Did he get a payout of 1% because he took the offer or because he didn't? - The 1% comment implies that Google didn't use the $2.4B to buy the shares of Windsurf; if not shares, then what did Google get in return?

Original citation: "I was given an offer that would explode same day. I had to forfeit all of my vested shares earned over my 3.5+ years at Windsurf. I was ultimately given a payout of only 1% of what my shares would have been worth at the time of the deal."

If the data is sent by a user to sub-unit X of Google, and X promised not to use it for training, it implies that X can share this data with sub-unit Y only if Y also commits not to use the data for training. Breaking this rule would get everyone in huge trouble.

OTOH, when sub-unit X said "We promise not to use data from the public website if the website owner asks us not to", it does not imply another sub-unit Y must follow that commitment.

I can write a useless and poorly-argued paper about P != NP (or P = MP), and it would be twaddle regardless of whether or not I guessed the equality / inequality correctly by pure chance.