It's tuned to the audience. Bloomberg was traditionally for people who actually wanted information. People who were fallible and had limited knowledge.

Of course that mentality is obsolete. Now we all have infinite access to perfectly correct information via the internet.

wow someone tell the philosophers this guy has figured out the knowledge problem!

Agreed. If the arguments seem sound and well supported, then all we can do is attack the tone.

That's possible, sure. But I think the answer is more likely in the numbers, not in just qualitatively saying AI isn't worth anything. Like if I pay $30k for an ounce of gold, I got value. Gold is worth something. But that amount of gold wasn't worth what I spent.

EDIT: In fact, parent comment has a link to some numbers.

[EDIT: Most] people don't want to go through the numbers. Ok. But there's a history here. When people don't want to see the numbers, certain kinds of things tend to happen.

I've posted numbers that indicate that productivity is becoming decoupled from value delivery. If you follow the link in my comment it reviews a pretty robust study of 4000 teams over 2 years. There is no product throughput increase.

Yep.

Code acceleration is great, but.... something precedes that. Vision and strategy re. expansion of offerings and businesses. Once a firm reaches maturity in what it offers and is only touching the edges - this code acceleration is literally useless when you factor in all of the trade-offs.

This is a good thing - it means fat and slow incumbents are sitting ducks to be out-witted by creative and imaginative founders, which is healthy for a well-functioning economy.

Now the economics of existing frontier models are not sustainable - its looking like a mix of the airline (supersonic vs subsonic) and EV industry with China in the background providing decent offerings at much lower prices.

Interesting data, thanks.

Stop testing. If you test, the picture is only going to get worse.

At least we don't have to worry about asymptomatic cases :-)

This is a reasonable reaction to the title, but not to TFA.

Why listen to US progressives' opinions about Europe? Ask Europeans.

So much like Clippy.

Some might argue that lying to those who want to be lied to is still usually dishonest.

What are you assuming about overflow? Three 32-bit numbers multiply out to 96 bits.

If you bring overflow into the mix things become a lot more complicated. You likely don't even need 32 bits, the numbers 2 and 3 might be enough (I don't know for sure or if there's a quick way to check).

Well, if you "bring overflow into the mix", what you get depends on your behavior when overflowing.

If you say that you want to be doing modular arithmetic instead of arithmetic, it doesn't look like 2 and 3 are enough. You're looking for a solution to

    2ᵃ * 3ᵇ ≡ n (mod 2⁶⁴)

If n is even, we can supply any number of 2 factors by fiddling with a. We can assume without loss of generality that n is odd and a = 0. Now we want

    3ᵇ ≡ n (mod 2⁶⁴)

for odd n.

If I'm reading wikipedia correctly, we know that this will fail for some n:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_root_modulo_n

> In symbols, g is a primitive root modulo n if for every integer a coprime to n, there is some integer k for which gᵏ ≡ a (mod n).

This is what we want, with g = 3, k = b, a = n₁, and n₂ = 2⁶⁴. Our restriction that n₁ (our n) is odd satisfies the requirement that a be coprime to n₂ (wikipedia's n, the modulus).

The article continues:

> a primitive root exists modulo n if and only if n is 4, pᵏ or 2pᵏ for some odd prime number p and some k ≥ 0.

2⁶⁴ does not satisfy this requirement and therefore there is no primitive root modulo 2⁶⁴. As such, 3 is not a primitive root modulo 2⁶⁴.

Interesting, one of those situations where the odd primes behave slightly differently. Which means it's probably above my paygrade.

I did say things would get complicated.

I think this depends a lot on how you select the set of private schools you're looking at.