I think it helps his credibility that he has been working with and speaking positively about AI assisted mathematics (especially for formalizing proofs) for over a year now . I'm sure he isn't unbiased, but as far as spokespeople in the AI space are concerned I'd count him among the less biased ones.
The advantage of frameworks isn't that they make it easier to write the actual agent, it's tooling + observability + ...
Even Langchain, for all the (deserved) criticism it gets made this very clear very early: It might be easy/easier to write your own chatbot from the ground up, but what happens if you have to add observability/tracing? Being able to just add one environment variable and instantly have a UI where i can nicely go through all of my traces with basically 0 additional effort is something a hand rolled solution just can't really compete with
This only becomes relevant if your execution graph is complex/big enough. Otherwise, all it takes is less than 30 minutes to add telemetry to all needed points. Doing manually also gives you better control on what you really want to track (to save costs).
Well similar to how turing machines are a sufficient theoretical model to make all kinds of arguments about runtime complexity of classical computers without relying on their actual physical implementation, we have theoretical models for the way we are approaching quantum computation that do the same thing (Namely the quantum circuit model)
In german, there is an idiomatic way of saying "I don't understand" (especially after attempting to do so multiple times) that literally translates to "Standing on the hose/tube", which is extra fitting here considering that, in both cases, a fix consists of getting up and walking away ;)
Of course it is beneficial in the long run, but beginners are still prone to overtraining and getting injured when they go from sitting a desk for 14 hours a day to running 3 times a week
I'm not performing any sort of moral judgement here, I'm using 'underpriced' to describe a good that is sold below its equilibrium pricetag.
Companies are free to do what they like, but lower prices will always lead to scenarios like this, where these go out of stock before demand is satisfied, and this discrepancy is what allows scalpers to exist in the first place.
Is it more moral to allocate goods to the people who are willing to pay the most for them, or to the people who have good scalping bots/happen to get lucky
They could sell the first few for more and settle down to their normal price after a time.
There isn't sustainable demand for a $300 steam controller, that's why they didn't price it there, not because they didn't want to sell for a huge profit. Ther is, however, a much smaller market of people who will pay a premium to be first, hence the resellers.
I kind of agree with 1, but not really with 2 and 3. It's easy to come up with trivial examples where it is both unreasonable and not feasible to follow those two, both for AI and non-AI scenarios.
Americans:
reply