1) Because the people who contributed to the development of those other processes received fair market value for their work (for the most part). The vast majority of contributors to the process that made this logo have not been compensated for their work. This differential can lead to an ethical judgement about the process, which can transitively be applied to the logo made with the process, and the restaurant as a whole.
2) Some automated processes lower the quality of outcomes. Microwaving food might be a faster/cheaper way to cook, but customers might criticize the results.
3) Some processes can be viewed as having lower value compared to others, independent of result quality. This is particularly common in the art and service industries, for which the logo of a restaurant is very much at the intersection.
With the old way of doing things you could spend energy to reduce errors, and balance that against the entropy of you environment/new features/whatever at a rate appropriate for your problem.
It's not obvious if that's the case with llm based development. Of course you could 'use llms until things get crazy then stop' but that doesn't seem part of the zeitgeist.
> It's not obvious if that's the case with llm based development. Of course you could 'use llms until things get crazy then stop' but that doesn't seem part of the zeitgeist.
Harnesses are coming online now that are designed to reduce failure rates and improve code quality. Systems that designate sub-agents that handle specific tasks, that put quality gates in place, that enforce code quality checks.
One system I saw (sadly not open source yet) spends ~70% of tokens on review and quality. I'll admit the current business model of Anthropic/OpenAI would be very unfriendly to that way of working. There is going to be some conflict popping up there. Maybe open weight models will save us, maybe not.
If Moore's Law had iterated once or twice more we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd all be running open weight models on our 64GB+ VRAM video cards at home and most of these discussions would be moot. AI company valuations would be a fraction of what they are.
Another interesting thing about the steam engine is much of science in the 1800s was dedicated to figuring out how steam engines actually worked to improve their efficiency. That may be similar for AI, or it may not!
We made an AlphaGo like implementation for the card game Dominion. Certainly not the same number of cards but similar complexity. I have high confidence the same techniques would work for mtg. In fact possibly better as mtg doesn't lend to large search depths. Though possibly worse as there is more hidden information (though that depends on if the format has open deck lists and/or how much of the meta is provided to or trained by the nn)
And in fact, the first engines were developed without a robust understanding of the physics behind them. So, the original version of 'engineering' is more closely to the current practices surrounding AI than the modern reinterpretation the root comment demands.
(1712) Newcomen Engine
(1776) Watt Engine
(1807) Atomic theory of Gasses (Dalton)
(1807) Concept of Energy (Young)
(1824) Carnot Cycle
(1834) Ideal Gas Law (Clayperon)
(1845) Relationship between work and heat (Joule)
(1840-60s) Laws of Thermodynamics (Carnot, Clausius, Kelvin)
For over a century, there were a group of people working on building, maintaining, repairing, refining and improving engines, called 'engineers', who had a very incomplete picture of the physical laws surrounding them. I would assume there were many explosions and other accidents along the way (as there continue to be).
The investment in the science of thermodynamics and the chemistry of fuels was largely motivated by the value of the steam engine, and the attempts to improve efficiencies allowing miniaturization, enabling locomotives and the railroad boom, and eventually automobiles and powered flight.
I think the era from say 1950..2020 has been a relatively unique period in history where science has been ahead of praxis (though folks in medicine or other fields might not have had that luxury). Recent advancements in AI preceding strong theoretical foundations might be a reversion to the mean.
Seems like it'd be relatively easy to allow one to 'smooth' their income over multiple years. Imagine paying 100 income at 40% tax year 1 and 0 income year 2. A scheme where you could retcon things to be 50, 50, each at say 30% for a 10k refund (or at least credit) seems very doable.
I don't understand how inflation and risk wouldn't/aren't priced in. You have $1000. You can: put it in your mattress, put it in 'safe' treasury bonds at inflation +a few percent, or yolo it in NVIDIA. Yes if bonds are returning less than inflation you don't buy them and that makes financing more expensive but it's not somehow unfair vs the other things you could do with capital.
Seems like return is roughly proportional to risk(1-tax)investment so changing tax should affect everything proportionally (barring cheating/avoiding the system in some way).
There's no inherent right to anything, really. The statements in whatever declaration or philosophy are just arbitrary lines. Physical property rights are just as arbitrary as the divine right if kings (and incredibly closely related when that property is inherited!)
The argument really isn't based on rights, it's based on the rules of the game have been that people that make things get to decide what folks get to do with those things via licensing agreements, except for a very small set of carve outs that everyone knew about when they made the thing. The argument is consent. The counter argument is one/all of ai training falls under one of those carve outs, and/or it's undefined so it should default to whatever anyone wants, and/or we should pass laws that change the rules. Most of these are just as logical as if someone invented resurrection tomorrow, then murder would no longer be a crime.
The similarity between divine right of kings and inheritance is that an unearned is transferred via circumstances of birth.
Your statements seem to extend that further: If you rent an apartment, you the property is owned by an landlord (lord is literally in the title!) and passed down by their wishes. Similarly if you work for Walmart for life, the company is owned and passed down by the Waltons. In these cases the property rights extend beyond life and are transferred via circumstances of birth, while the rights of labor end.
Interesting that IP rights are ended by death (or death+n years) as well. This line of reasoning suggests maybe that should apply to all property.
Real world efficiency factors are in the 90s and basal rates aren't constant. The model you're proposing is too artificial to draw conclusions about fasting over a short timeframe.
2) Some automated processes lower the quality of outcomes. Microwaving food might be a faster/cheaper way to cook, but customers might criticize the results.
3) Some processes can be viewed as having lower value compared to others, independent of result quality. This is particularly common in the art and service industries, for which the logo of a restaurant is very much at the intersection.
reply