200 countries pledged $300 billion per year in total - not very much since climate change disasters are already costing tens of billions a year and many human lives in the US alone.
How would this multiple passes work though? Unless the model actually talks about what it does, I am not sure how it would have this ability. The next word prediction mechanism is just always going to do it one shot. Your prompt paints a context that might keep it more on the rails, but it won't do multiple passes.
> Unless the model actually talks about what it does
That's how the chain-of-thought approach works. You can make the model do it inline, or you can run the loop yourself, possibly summarising the progress as you go. (Although with prompt caching it's not that important anymore) You can encourage it to print out assumptions/steps/ideas as it goes.
Your prompt paints a context that might keep it more on the rails, but it won't do multiple passes.
This is probably the truth behind the black magic I’m imagining. You could have it explicitly spit out this process, in which case you would see it’s first rough draft, followed by a “My first paragraph is probably wrong”, followed by a third paragraph where it attempts to fix the first paragraph. There is no outside RAG in this process.
The mumbo jumbo part of all this is that I’ve told it to “hide” this process from the user where it doesn’t explicitly output anything but its final answer, and the accuracy has been just as good (for my use case at least).
Yeah that’s not how next token prediction works. To actually do multiple passes you’d need to do that yourself, making multiple calls and feeding the responses back to the model.
Why? The very nature of next token prediction means it's entirely capable of having that. It's not multiple passes, it's just one pass. You making multiple calls is just inserting fixed tokens then asking it to carry on completing.
making multiple calls and feeding the responses back to the model.
By asking it to reconsider half its generated response, aren’t I essentially asking it to formulate the second half of its response from the first half internally? I’m bypassing the manual process of feeding in the extra prompt.
We are constantly having to tell the LLM close, but no cigar, iterate again, more or less.
There's a lot of change happening now in Kenya, especially in terms of stable and democratic governance, but in no way is it not corrupt. It ranks at near the top consistently amongst African nations for corruption and bribery at all levels of the government.
The actual value of a currency is not all that relevant. The Japanese Yen is worth less than the Indian Rupee, but the cost of living in India is a lot lower.
When talking about currencies being over or under valued, we're usually not referring to the value of 1 unit of each currency being equal, more the exchange rates themselves. See the Big Mac index for example, for a real life illustration. You can buy a Big Mac in the US for $X, and a Big Mac in India for INR Y, but $X doesn't necessarily buy you exactly INR Y in the market right now. Might buy you more or less, and if you're using the Big Mac as a standard you would say one of the currencies is over or under valued.
Currency exchange rates matter for tourism, buying foreign goods, foreign investment, working in a different country, businesses that rely on international trade, and so on. International trade matters in just about every country, as we can see in countries suffering from trade sanctions.
Yeah, but I think the point is that this applicable on unrealized capital gains too. So if I start a company in Norway, raise a bunch of money and then move to the US because the company wants to have a presence there, I now have to pay the tax on the basis of the money raised; It's quite common for a reasonable successful founder to be worth millions on paper while having no cash.
On the other hand, not taxing unrealized capital gains on exit would effectively create a loophole by which it would be possible to avoid taxation simply by moving to a tax haven for a while and realize the gains there.
It is and the effect is immediate and destructive to any value creation in startups. It basically forces companies to leave before raising any serious money or founders will end up with tax bills that have to be paid out of investment money
Or just staying in the country, thereby bolstering their economy. Which is almost certainly the end goal. I mean, it kind of sucks if these countries provide the tools to create successful businesses and then those businesses just move to cheaper countries. You're kind of getting screwed over.
Countries invest too. In their economy. Providing high quality education at a low price is a huge investment, for example. It's not a good deal if citizens take that and you don't get a return on your investment, i.e. they're not creating innovative companies in your country.
reply