A sensational statement that is utterly false.

Per 100g, Norwegian farmed salmon has 0.1x the sodium, 0.5x the saturated fat, 2x the protein, 20x the Omega-3 fatty acids and infinity-x the vitamin D of your hamburger.

Farmed salmon is a minimally processed single-ingredient protein, while your hamburger is ultra-processed and packed with refined carbs, added sugar and high-fructose corn syrup and chemicals synthesized in a lab.

> Children and pregnant women should also limit the intake because it can disrupt development.

Presumably you're talking about growth hormones?

Because that American fast-food hamburger has plenty of growth hormones.

Under Norwegian law and European Union/EEA regulations, the use of growth hormones in fish farming is strictly illegal.

Instead of taking syntactic shortcuts, the richer abstractions learned from multiple languages, and code, and math, and images and audio, ultimately make English comprehension and reasoning far stronger.

If you want citations, ask your favorite LLM how linguistic diversity prevents "surface memorization", overfitting on surface-level English patterns instead of representing the deeper concepts in latent vector space.

The results for English and Python are much better because the model is also trained on Mandarin and Greek and Lisp even if you never make a request or receive a response in Mandarin, Greek or Lisp.

Interestingly, the 10x shares held by Brin and Page constitute only 11% of the economic value of Alphabet, but 51% of the voting control.

And the 10x shares automatically convert to 1x shares upon transfer or inheritance, so if the founders cash out or die, the 10x supervoting power disappears.

One exception is GOOG / GOOGL which both trade actively, and there's not much difference in price.

The mechanism for a price divergence could be accumulation of the 10x shares to seize control, but even if you could buy the entire float, it wouldn't be enough to take control, so that mechanism never happens.

they are not humans

they don't think

they don't 'know'

antirez never says they are or do any of that

at least an llm can write a response that is relevant to its context, your non-sequiturs can't even do that.

I want them to be strongly biased in favor of free expression.

But they take my money and use it restrict how people dress, how they pray, what customs they are allowed to follow, what they teach their kids.

The agenda they support is anti-free-expression, and that's worse than neutral.

I don't know if Google would be net-good or net-evil, but I'm pretty sure they would be far less evil than most of the other large corporations on that list.

Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Goldman Sachs, LVMH, McDonalds, etc.

But it's a paradox that on HN, Google gets far more hate than any of these.

Maybe HN is a weird combination of fatalistic and idealistic, where we assume any for-profit corporation with a do-gooder mission is lying about its mission to hide its essential evilness, while secretly hoping that maybe it really is possible to do good and do well at the same time.

For a while it seemed like Google's do-gooder mission was genuine. Unlike their less principled competition, Google refused to take money to influence search rankings. Google withdrew from mainland China rather than continue censoring search results there.

We secretly started to believe. But all the other compromises along the way felt like betrayals.

Google really is less evil, even today, but we hate them more because we dared to believe, and Google let us down.

Exactly. I don't have to write binary machine code directly, every zero and one artisanally crafted by hand, to have thought deeply for years about a how to solve a problem.

In fact, choosing the right level of abstraction is essential to my ability to solve the problem.

For most problems, the friction of writing binary code by hand is the wrong level.

And we're discovering that many important problems can be solved faster and with greater quality than can be achieved by dogmatically hand-writing every line of source code just for the friction.

I tried building something similar to make 72-hour predictions about the US war on Iran, but found that the persona subagents were far too naive. They believed official statements and media reports at face value, they failed to read between the lines or apply principles of bounded distrust. They accepted spin and wartime propaganda and didn't give enough weight to underlying incentives. They didn't learn from their mistakes from earlier rounds or downgrade their trust in sources after their statements were repeatedly proven false.

It must be possible to improve accuracy with memory, system prompts, progressively changing subagent weights based on historical performance, etc.

I found it helpful to allow the personas to talk to each other. A pure weight of 20% each for 5 personas that are blind to the arguments of the others didn't work as well as personas that modified their rationales after reading the output of the others.

After each prediction resolves, I would have each persona create a post-mortem analysis of what they got right and wrong. Maybe visibility into prior post mortems of their own persona and those of others on the board could allow them to recognize historical cognitive biases and recalibrate for the next prediction.

Presumably the hosted version will have a leaderboard of some sort. Each board might not be able to cheat, but if users can cheaply create many sockpuppet boards, you'll see the Baltimore Stockbroker Scam emerge on the leaderboard. If the public attestation is to be meaningful, it must be difficult and expensive to create new boards.

But if they promise to target specific groups of people to close their schools, regulate how they dress, ban their prayers, and suppress their art, it's all about restricting their freedom of expression.

That's the whole program.

Their polices focus on the way people dress, the languages they speak in public, the institutions and schools they build, the traditions they practice.

People would be forced to self-censor their speech, their beliefs, and their behavior.

It's not a "stretch". It's the whole program.

Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

>> the same way that someone's opinions on animal rights, taxes or public healthcare ...

We're not talking about reasonable people disagreeing about tax policy, we're talking about free expression, the entire purpose of Mullvad.

When you make a large donation to a political party whose most fundamental policy is restricting the free expression of people, that is wholly incompatible with everything Mullvad says they stand for.

When a founder and executive with influence over Mullvad policy and operations is exposed actively and financially support restricting free expression of people, it's not "tolerant" to pretend that's somehow compatible with the mission and brand of the company.

If you were tokenmaxxing you would understand.

Do you disagree?

Maybe instead of antitrust the US could go back to tariffs, the universal cure for high prices.

If you want to believe the simple idea that AI is mostly hype, then you'll get stuck in a multi-year loop talking about stochastic parrots, ridiculous valuations, and doomer scaredycats.

But the real world isn't so simple. Multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time.

Some AI is useless. Some is incredibly powerful and useful even though it makes mistakes. Some companies are wildly overvalued. Some extremely large and expensive companies will quadruple from here. Some frightening scenarios will look silly in hindsight. Other frightening things will happen that none of the doomers foresee.

It would be great to explore those new ideas and possibilities.

It's so boring rehashing the same old tired and worn out ideas like "they're just hyping the danger to pump their shares up."