- buy shortly after the IPO, ideally less than 15 days

- and sell less than 6 months later when lockups would end and insiders are set to cash out?

You can try to avoid consuming AI-generated material, but of course part-way through a lot of things you may wonder whether it is partly AI-generated, and we don't yet have a credible "human-authored" stamp. But you can't really keep them from using your work to make cheap copies of you, or at least reducing your audience by including information or insights from your work in the chat sessions of people who otherwise might have read your work.

I think this gets the timeline wrong. Microsoft acquired GH in 2018 and started the partnership with OpenAI in summer 2019.

I'm sure there was some strategy to extract value from it that wouldn't serve its users but I think OpenAI was not initially meant to be the beneficiary.

I think the thing is that yes, `[a] -> [a]` tells you relatively little about the particular relationship between lists that the function achieves, but in other languages such a signature tells you _everything_ about:

- what you need to call invoke it

- what the implementation can assume about its argument

i.e. how to use or change the function is much clearer

I think maybe the idea that a single author spending months or years on their research, which the publish as a single bound and polished work is misguided -- an academic trying to do similar work in multiple articles would have gotten review from peers on each article, and hopefully have not spent so much time working under a correctable misunderstanding.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47546421

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Rather than complain about how these things have not yet gone through real experiments and are marketed as having been "studied" rather than "effective", I would love to see society use the obvious demand for some of these to actually test them.

I think someone during the copy-editing process told them this needed to look more complicated?

Open plan offices continue to be designed more for seeing the work happen than for doing the work. I spend a lot of mental energy on ignoring the distractions around me. No job has ever offered me a private office with a door that closes in exchange for being in the office 5 days a week.

> I've seen buggy pre-1.0 libraries used for critical production softwareNot "critical" as in "if it goes down it's really annoying", but "critical" as in "checks and stores passwords" or "moves money from one bank account to another". simply because it was a wrapper library written in a functional language, as opposed to a more stable library written in an imperative language.

I do think if you're using a niche language in an industrial capacity, you need to know how to work with libraries outside the language. Admittedly this is easier for some languages than others. But I've run into candidates who wanted to interview in clojure but who didn't know how to call into pre-provided java libraries.

- when we have an estimate of how many hundreds of billions it costs to rebuild after a hurricane that would not have happened but for climate change, existing economic processes generate that number

- when insurers raise rates throughout a region, this reflects an expectation on the cost of damage, and the change over time reflects the increase in risk we've created

- when a heatwave kills a bunch of people, we already have a range of ways of estimating a monetary value for those lives from insurance, healthcare and liability litigation.

Further ... suppose your elderly relative left you a bunch of jewelry. You don't know how much it's worth and getting it appraised can actually be a bit complicated and doesn't give you complete certainty over value. But it would be _bonkers_ to continually take unappraised jewelry out into the marketplace, liquidate it, and pretend that the whole sales price was _earnings_. After the transaction, you don't have a thing you had before. You didn't know what it was worth initially but that doesn't mean that it was worthless, and you probably got scammed. Yes, measuring the full environmental impact of all our industries is hard, but pretending it's 0 is silly.

- changes to the value of natural and ecosystem resources (e.g. if I clear a forest to sell timber, we must acknowledge some lost value for the forest)

- amount of economic transactions in service of mitigating problems created by externalities from other activity (e.g. if my pollution gets into your groundwater, you paying to remediate the pollution isn't "value created")

I.e. growth of _actual net value_ still sounds like a good thing to pursue but we let our politicians run around doing anything to maximize GDP without talking about what the "gross" is hiding.