Last time I checked it costs closer to 500K to run SOTA open models at any usable speed.

I work for an HFT (not Jane Street) so I am biased, but we (the HFT industry as a whole) are quite small compared to big tech.

I’d estimate the total global HFT revenue to be 100 billion dollars a year, which is less than Apple and a tiny percentage of all big tech combined.

I would love to talk more with you about HFT work :) i am working in one myself! Please email akazaa96@gmail.com if you wanna have a chat!

Last I checked, Apple makes arguably useful products like smartphones and laptops.

Though admittedly the former have turned into pocket attention black holes (and enragement/slot machines) and Apple itself created the scourge of public Facetime calls.

I know some people don't see these as benefits (compared to "useful products like smartphones"), but we do cause instrument pricing to be more accurate and a thinner buy/sell spread and greatly increase liquidity.

That's a bad thing. When transaction costs were high the market didn't own society as much.

> They're accountable for what their software does.

Sure, but doesn’t it depend on the circumstances?

Sure it does. And if the circumstances indicate that OpenAI committed a crime, they should be held accountable. End of story.

I agree with you right up until “end of story”. Absolutely they should be held accountable, but stories provide details and there is nothing wrong with including details in the title.

Or could we take your original statement to its logical conclusion and change the title to just “OpenAI commits crime”?

> so it should possible to see these LLMs relative to a human 1500 rather than just relative to each other

As a 1500 elo human I can tell you that a 1500 elo chess engine doesn't play like anything like a 1500 elo human.

This is true, but I'm not sure it matters? I was poking around at the lichess database recently and those elo calibrated bots are remarkably well calibrated, their rating variance sticks out like a sore thumb compared to human players even at similar game volumes. So it should still be a decent predictor of how good a human at that level is, even if the playstyle seems alien.

That would only work for the first few (from around 10 to 20 typically depending on how close people stick to opening book) moves.

Conservatively there are well over 10 to the 30 positions likely to show up in realistic games.

There are of the order of 10 to the 10 or so games recorded.

Thus well under one in a trillion positions are "known".

This is simply blatant misinformation. If you play a game online on lichess and go to the analysis board you can find when your game becomes novel. It will be within 20 turns unless you are intentionally following a known opening. In fact it will likely become unique within 10-15 turns.

It's not my experience at all. If you find yourself in a novel position within 10-15 moves it's likely a resignable one.

Edit: maybe you don't understand what i mean by novel position. I mean any position that has never been reached in the billions of lichess games, including bullet games among beginners.

Also yes I will concede that it's possible to make "quiet" moves. pawn nudges that barely affect anything. If you're doing those you're not 1500 ELO. You're intentionally trying to throw wrenches and I just don't see why an ELO bot even needs to bother with nonsense like that. This is supposed to be for fun / training!

I suspect my IQ isn’t quite high enough to join Mensa but I’ve always flirted with the idea of trying to join and getting in just to see what a group of Mensa people are like.

We are basically random. 2% of population by top IQ test result has pretty much very similar distribution in all aspects to 100% of the population. It's not a high bar to be fastest processing one among 50 people.

If you calculate this properly, a Mensa member has about a cointoss chance to be the "smartest" among random group of 35 people (not 50).

Given that they are probably rarely in groups of purely random people, if you are Mensa member and you are in a group of dozen people (for example in professional setting) you'd probably have a 50/50 chance of not being the one with the highest IQ there.

What should I research? IQ follows normal distribution across entire population. I guess if you'd built your heterogenous population out of mental patients and university professors together you'd get bimodal distribution, but such heterogenous populations don't spontaneously pop up in your life very often.

I did a little research, it's not clear what you mean.

They study it because it has done things that humans had long assumed were bad until AI proved otherwise. The conceptual knowledge has been valuable at the top level.

For those who don’t follow human vs AI Go (I don’t), this is with a 2 stone handicap in favor of the human which is apparently standard.

The headline is misleading, but this is still huge. 2 stones against katago is insane, I'd never have guessed we'd see that, ever.

Annoyingly misleading. I read it that the human player was handicapped.

Like many random headlines they may be targeted at people who know something about a topic.

If you know anything about go or computer go from last 10 years then it is obvious which direction the handicap goes.

Bridges are not free

No but they are available at very reasonable prices in prime locations.

If anyone's interested I have a very pretty one listed in Brooklyn. See my Google search ad for details. :P

They are also not funded with blood money.

It’s unusable in Sydney, Australia.

It might be fine for pure navigation to addresses but business addresses and other metadata are often missing or out of date because people only bother to update Google Maps. Also that’s where all the reviews are.

I don’t want to use two different apps for navigation vs finding businesses.

Since the last time I tried, Apple Maps has come down from plotting some 30 petrol stations in the Sydney CBD to 2. There are in fact none.

Apart from needing to copy and paste destination addresses from Google/Google Maps every time I use Apple Maps, it's great.

I have aphantasia and I don’t have much trouble thinking of data structures and so on without visualising them. It’s hard to describe how I do it. I do imagine it would be easier with visualisation. If it gets hard I’ll use a pen and paper or an editor to make diagrams.

Things I seem to be average or above average at that I’d expect aphantasia to be a disadvantage for:

- the “chimp test” (search if you don’t know what this is)

- chess (but I have hit a wall at 1500 on chess.com and I find it very hard to explore future moves in my head more than a few. I feel like if I studied chess 8 hours a day for 30 years I still couldn’t hope to play blindfold chess)

- remembering numbers and computer facts.

- spelling including remembering spellings of obscure surnames I’ve never heard of before

I think even people without aphantasia can’t typically use visualisation for reliable storage of things even in the short term, correct me if I’m wrong. A extremely rare few have a photographic memory.