The test wasn't made to accurately measure IQs that high.

I'm not saying people who already have a dishwasher will throw it away. But a robot makes installing a new dishwasher much less tempting.

At my utility prices, it costs about 5¢ to hand-wash one serving (plate, pan, glass, utensils, and a bowl) with running water. That's not nothing, but it's dwarfed by the energy use of using the oven and the supply-chain energy and water use of the food if it includes meat.

People will casually waste 10x that energy without a second thought when they don't need to just because it's convenient, or because they're used to doing things that way.

The dishwasher looks more unfavorable if you're considering installing one in a small apartment or condo. Apart from the cost of the dishwasher, you need space to install it, and more cupboard space to keep more dishes, glasses, etc. For an extra 4¢ per person-meal, having your robot do the dishes buys you the convenience of skipping all that and having all your dishes clean and ready all the time.

The parent commenter was trying to draw some insight from LLMs being classifiers that wouldn't apply equally to everything else.

You can broaden the definition of classifier to anything that internally divides its input space into regions, but that definition would include every neural network, whether biological or artificial. So it's not very meaningful, and certainly doesn't give any insight into how they differ from humans.

The side benefit is all your dishes are always available. With the dishwasher, up to one full dishwasher load are dirty at any time, which means you need more dishes and more cupboard space than someone without a dishwasher.

If the robot is going to clear your dishes and wash them for you right away, what's the dishwasher for? To save the robot 10 minutes?

If the future home robots are any good, it saves you from buying a dishwasher and robot vacuum. It can replace a maid/cleaning service and gardener/lawn-mowing service. For anyone paying for those services, it pays for itself.

$1000 isn't that high. Probably about a third of American households have an appliance over $2000, which is still a massive market.

It would be very hard for anyone to make a good music video with the tools Fable and Sol had available to them. They don't have precise control over the clips that get generated, and they can't see or hear the result, other than screenshots. So I'm not sure what the experimenters expected.

By contrast, when coding, devs typically have hundreds of thousands of tokens in the context window, and may use many millions of input tokens per day.

Caching requires the full prefix to match exactly. If a single word differs near the beginning of the prompt, nothing after that can share the cache. So this type of caching would save a few queries that cost virtually nothing, but wouldn't help with the stuff where cost matters.

I'm going to firmly push back on this. A reasonable, straightforward interpretation of AOC's quote is that "you can't earn a billion dollars" without cheating or abusing others. I'm can believe she may have meant that as hyperbole, but even if she did, PG believes "What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way." He's not doing mental gymnastics to get there; it's a straightforward reading of "you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that."

That makes PG very much not strawmanning. He's arguing directly against her stated position. He doesn't steelman her argument (create a stronger or more generous version of her argument and argue against that), which could have made his argument stronger.

That also means I'm not strawmanning. PG's position is exactly what I said: that it's not impossible to become a billionaire without doing something bad. He is quite clear on that. Nowhere does PG use language implying all billionaires don't cheat. Only AOC does that, if you take her words literally.

I think you're basically doing what you accused me of doing here: greatly softening AOC's position. Did Dropbox spam users' contact lists to grow? (They didn't, AFAIK, though they did have a referral program to invite friends.) This is a huge downgrade in accusation of wrongdoing compared to breaking rules and abusing labor laws.

If you soften your definition of cheating to this level, it's no longer a billionaire thing. It's an everyone thing. Does my gardener report all his cash income? Has a friend ever streamed a TV show less than legitimately? AOC isn't trying to nitpick the smallest infractions. She's trying to paint becoming a billionaire as substantially corrupt.