i think the "problem" here is that for all of human history we have always been able to use mastery of language as a signal for intelligence and competence, of which LLMs are neither. it's possible this is even instinctual it's so ingrained in our concepts of "other minds". so we're going to have to get used to the fact that just using language well isn't enough to prove intelligence, certainly not consciousness.
which then begs the the question, what is the magic ingredient, on top of use of language, that we have that bestows these qualities?
and also the observation that whatever this ingredient is, it must be very difficult to measure or prove which is maybe why we stuck with the crude, but easy to wield, "use-of-language" test for so long.
this missing piece also seems to be described under the banner "narcissism", which is a coping mechanism often acquired in childhood to deal with some sort of abuse or trauma
you're not wrong, and i think the technology exists to accomplish something that did this, and has for a few years. but the end result would be a system that funnels money from large numbers of people, to different large numbers of people. and a lot of overlap and cross payments too. maybe there's a good business in transaction fees on that? but it seems like big numbers going to other people while a much smaller number goes to the party owning the system is not an appealing business in our world.
ipso facto why does it not exist while spotify buys podcasts and kills them
No doubt Apple can negotiate some form of super-exclusivity deal with a fab, in the same way that their license from ARM is probably more permissive than any other of their partners.
(I wouldn't put it past them to go with Intel – after all, during the PPC era, it also would've been unexpected to go with Intel!)
In the earnings call last week they stated they’re still a while away from that goal. These buybacks are part of the net cash neutral strategy.
Other forms they could take are upping R&D (but they already seem to be pretty high), or increasing employee wages (that would be much appreciated I’m sure) or reducing product margins (also probably appreciated by a different group). Though the latter two are harder to back out of if things ever go south.
Sitting on cash means you aren't putting it to use.
1. invest in the business to increase long-term profits
2. give out dividends to investors
3. buy back stocks so future dividends are more valuable
Cash flow (from revenues) is relatively predictable, so you can count on more coming in to cover future expenses. Business can also issue bonds (loans) should cash be in shortfall or they want to invest in a factory or similar.
Honestly, I do not understand it myself either. I just understand the mechanisms behind it but I do not understand why one would logically want less money.
If you owned a business that had a bunch of cash sitting around with no useful growth opportunities to invest it in you wouldn't keep it in your business's bank account, you'd pay yourself and spend the money on a vacation or invest it elsewhere.
Same with a giant corporation. Its shareholders want to be invested in a business. Owning part of a business that is 10% just a giant cash pile isn't necessarily appealing. The corporation should return the cash to its investors so they can decide what they want to do with it.
It funny... I find a radical division between programmers on this one. I was always a Perl-hater. I got into Unix/Linux in the 90s when Perl was big and I never learned it because I took one look at the syntax and some Perl code and my brain instantly recoiled in abject horror. I know lots of other devs who loved it. Still not sure what the division is, though I think it might be also related to the fact that I generally hate complexity and my reaction to it is "how can we get rid of this?"
>The union is so far providing some details of the agreement, more of which will likely emerge in the next few days
so it's not in the article because they haven't allowed those details to be public yet. dare i say, that's ominous to announce "we agree" but to keep the terms secret till it's inked, but we'll see i guess
the biggest difference between a hybrid and an EV being the size of the battery, you're probably taking into account the carbon footprint of mining all the minerals for the battery from the ore. that's a huge cost, but the battery can be recycled and rebuilt with those purified metals for much less energy than it took to separate them from their ores.
which then begs the the question, what is the magic ingredient, on top of use of language, that we have that bestows these qualities?
and also the observation that whatever this ingredient is, it must be very difficult to measure or prove which is maybe why we stuck with the crude, but easy to wield, "use-of-language" test for so long.
reply