Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aurareturn's comments login

Not that I agree with Vance, but is it finally an admission from the EU that it's lagging behind due to over regulation?

I agree. If I had a ton of family wealth, I would have pursued a PhD instead of working 9 to 5.

  The US president has also tabled demands that would see Nato military spending targets more than doubled to 5 per cent of GDP in a bid to end Europe’s reliance on Washington.
Isn't the whole goal of Trump's 2% demand to buy more American-made weapons?

If the US does not back NATO countries, and demand 2-5% spending, what's the point of NATO countries even buying American weapons?

Lastly, is it really fair for NATO countries to spend at least 2% on their military if much of that budget goes to American companies?


Is it fair that the US has to keep subsidizing Europe, a collection of countries that constantly complain about the US? That tax and fine our companies while criticizing the US for its lack of a welfare state?

This is the populist rhetoric to sell it to the base rather than the actual state of things. The US taking a more isolationist position does nothing but hurt the US.

They don't subsidise Europe. They keep Europe on a leash.

That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.


The leash has been pretty long and the dog food was good (free defense through NATO!)... If any of that changes, the relationship will change.

There has been no free defense through NATO, because a great part of the military spending of the NATO countries has always gone to US companies, even in cases when alternative better deals had existed.

The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members.

USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive.

(Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.)

The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects.

Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.


Nothing is ever free...

It's too late. They've already trained their foundational models on copyright information.

Now models have moved onto synthetic data. They don't need copyright information anymore.

When they do need copyright information, models that can reason will simply be able to look up the information like a human would, if it needs it.


It's not government waste as long as they are buying from Trump allies. Disgusting.

SaaS isn't dead. SaaS without some sort of AI is dead.

A SaaS for something creative, sure. But a SaaS that deals with any kind of data, of course not, because you can't productize "we operate on your data but you can't trust the outputs lmao".

You would be surprised. If you throw a good implementation of AI into a call center, which still hasn’t been done that often even though I have done a couple, if it even has a 30% success rate at helping users without you having to talk to an agent that’s a huge win.

Every time you interact with a live person at a call center it costs $3-$5 and many people would much rather not deal with outsourced call agent.


Braindead take.

lol no SaaS without hallucinations

Except that the Snapdragon X Elite is actually faster than both AMD and Intel chips on average.

It is faster only for the things that casual users do, which are not computation-intensive.

It is slower for scientific/technical computing or anything else that contains great amounts of operations with either arrays or big numbers.

Even for the things where the Qualcomm CPUs may be faster, their performance per dollar is inferior to the Intel/AMD CPUs.


It's not by accident. It's by design.

I'm cursed with being able to see both sides of the coin more often that most people.

In this case, Elon clearly attracts white people who feel like they've been wronged by DEI, the left media, immigration, etc. They don't feel like they're bad people or have done anything wrong to minorities. They’ve seen their communities and neighborhoods turn to something worse when minorities moved in. You can call them white supremacists, which has a negative connotation to it. I understand why they feel the way they feel.

At the same time, America is filled with different kinds of people, whether white people like it or not. The glass ceiling, the subtle racism, perpetual media and Hollywood discrimination of certain kinds of people are all things that most white people have a hard time understanding even if they are compassionate. When Elon or Trump say “America is for Americans”, all minorities know it really means “America is for white people”. The ideal outcome for Trump and Elon is that all black people are locked up, all Latinos deported, and all Asians go back to Asia voluntarily except those loyal to them.


I think he used the free version. GPT4o did better. It was missing 2 states. GPTo3-mini-high did it correctly in one shot.

So this is against what Gary Marcus is saying. I think his argument falls apart if he's says that we won't have AGI soon because a free model is making mistakes, but ignores that the newer and more expensive model can do what he says.

No one said AGI will be cheap in 2-3 years. They're saying it could be achieved in 2-3 years. It could be achieved but require an entire state's electricity to run it inititally.


The covid bump is way bigger than the current decline. So the covid bump just pulled forward a lot of hire. It's sort of like Netflix adding a ton of subscriptions which then drastically lowered future subscriptions growth.

Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: