Absolutely does not imply the workers are automated since they can now use the current models to do more complex tasks at the vast number of new AI training data startups.

Turk was simply not designed for greater complexity tasks and so much of their lunch has been eaten by startups specifically built to collect AI training data.

Otherwise this becomes just another tool for Google to wall in the subset of the internet they like.

In this case, a the difference in context cache hit rate between openclaw and antigravity.

For example if openclaw starts every message with the current time hh:mm:ss at the top of the context window, followed by the full convo history, it would have a cache hit rate if ~0. Simply moving the updated time to each new message incrementally would increase hit rate to over 90%. Idk if openclaw does this but there’s many many optimizations like this. And worse, thrashing the cache has non linear effects on the server as more and more users’ cached contexts get evicted from cache due to high cardinality. The cost to serve difference could be >10x.

Google is the furthest behind on coding agent adoption and has all the incentives to allow off policy use to grow demand. But it would probably be better to design their own optimized openclaw and serve that for free than let any unoptimized requests in.

Transpacific flights from California have no sonic boom population issues for 90% of the flight, and there’s already a large market of people spending $10k on business travel.

Reducing travel time from 12hrs to 4hrs would be a product with a lot more demand than 7hrs to 3hrs to Europe.

Important point because people have a bias to underestimate the speed of ai progress.

this is the most interesting time for software tools since compilers and static typechecking was invented.

Clearly the right thing for Sweden and others to do. Also worrying that even 3yrs into the Russian invasion, bordering countries are urgently increasing their preparedness for future conflicts.

It's very unlikely the Fed kept rates too low because inflation didn't exceed 2% for 12 years from 2008 to 2021. If the Fed had actually made money "too cheap" inflation would have kicked in much earlier.

More likely, we made it very hard to do new stuff in the country, which made the value of borrowed money low.

Congress spent decades adding regulations (often for good reason) that ultimately resulted in it being too expensive to do most things inside the US. If a business is banned from investing in most new things, it won't need to borrow more money.

The Fed just responded to the market's appraisal of money value. You can even see this in the long term charts - interest rates declined almost continuously from 1984 to 2022.

The entire time, inflation stayed at or below 2%. If the Fed had kept rates higher, theory would predict they would have caused a recession (and Scott Sumner has spent more than a decade arguing this is actually what caused the long deep recession of 2008 - money was too expensive, even at 0%).

Ultimately money is neutral in the long run. The things that truly matter for growth are laws, culture, natural resources and education. These are the causes of our present social dysfunction. These are the issues we should focus on fixing. Not fiddling with interest rates.

Mostly the benefit is instead of having the concrete under you absorb and emit the sun, the leaves above you do.

This dramatically reduces the heat we feel at human height.

The oil example is very compelling for import substitution. And the covid example is interesting in showing the savings rate only went up as an offset of gov spending.

I'd love to see a follow up on (a) is it important for the US to increase domestic savings and (b) what are the best policies to do so, and why are they the best?

I imagine blanket tariffs might actually increase the savings rate because they increase the cost of importing all goods when the domestic alternatives are either inferior or more expensive. But I'm curious if they are the best way to achieve the savings goal.

I think the good faith critique is access to imports can be taken away by the other country if they want. eg. rare earth metals. So being too heavily reliant on imports without the capacity to produce domestically is less long run access

Reducing problems to document ranking is effectively a type of test-time search - also very interesting!

I wonder if this approach could be combined with GRPO to create more efficient chain of thought search...

https://github.com/BishopFox/raink?tab=readme-ov-file#descri...

> "Texas didn't [build solar farms and battery storage] for an energy transition reason at all," says Rhodes, "We just made it easy to build things here. And so people started building things here."

It's hard for me to reconcile the criticism of Texas's market structure with the fact that they seem to add more (clean) generation capacity than any other state.

Is it as simple as: Their state is growing very fast (both people and electricity per person due to datacenters) leading to supply/demand forecasting difficulty and mismatches?

TX generates 138% more electricity in 2023 vs. 2009 [1]. By contrast CA generated 5% less electricity in 2023 vs. 2009 [2] (roughly same for any 2 years around those start and stop years).

I do wish this topic were treated less politically and more pragmatically. At this point everyone seems to agree we need more electricity in the future with less carbon intensity and so far, TX is one of the few states actually achieving it at scale.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2... [2] https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/7311

- Luxury product companies advertise the most (utilities rarely do). The tax will decrease consumption of the most economically "unnecessary"

- Advertisers charge more money to show ads to rich people than on poor people - even a flat % tax will naturally impact the rich more than the poort

- Prices are set by auction at the maximum of the advertisers willingness to pay - this means tax revenue will hit the supplier of ads not the buyer

- Tax on ads is fundamentally a tax on consumption not income

- It's a zero sum positional product - ads make use of finite physical space/attention. This is close to a negative externality that people cannot contract away (eg i cannot contract the billboard company to not show me ads for $5/mo). On the web, this could technically be done, but the marginal value is so low and the number of billboard providers so high that transaction costs prevent it from happening

I am actually willing to have space ads if there were a super high tax on it. Imagine to show a message to all of humanity for a week, you must first pay $100B of taxes to all of humanity. That might be worth it.

I've been surprised there's less discussion of advertising taxes than much more complicated things like land value taxes, even though advertising/marketing is 1/5th of GDP in developed markets.

If o1-preview was the start like gpt1, then we should expect generalization to increase quickly.

This means we have an algorithm to get to human level performance on this task.

If you think this task is an eval of general reasoning ability, we have an algorithm for that now.

There's a lot of work ahead to generalize o3 performance to all domains. I think this explains why many researchers feel AGI is within reach, now that we have an algorithm that works.

Congrats to both Francois Chollet for developing this compelling eval, and to the researchers who saturated it!

[1] https://x.com/SmokeAwayyy/status/1870171624403808366, https://arxiv.org/html/2409.01374v1