Yep. I don't know if anyone is interested in anecdotes, but looking from Europe, I will do my best to avoid any kind of US dependency until US has a) overhauled the legal system starting from the Supreme Court and b) gotten rid of the de facto two-party system. (No, one-party system does not count.)
Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ?
As an American I keep trying to surmise what we're going to need to do to start repairing the damage from this massive self-own. It's kind of hard because we don't know where the bottom will be, but we at least need to start having these discussions on what constructive approaches might even look like - we can't have our milquetoast opposition party phoning it in yet again with entitlement as the less-bad option.
External context is key - one of the main goals of this hybrid warfare attack on the western world has been to disrupt our relationships with our allies, and also because other countries have developed Democracies that function way better than ours. So please know that at least some of us are listening.
> Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ?
Well, if you ask my other wishes, once Europe has gotten its act straight and decides to tax/tariff/regulate/whatever (american) big tech to hell and back, I kind of would expect that any decent person on that side of the pond would just humbly nod their head and note that, yes, we/they deserved it.
I think domestically we need some analog of the EU's GDPR, as table stakes for preventing the surveillance industry ("big tech") from amassing so much power over the People that they're inclined to try for another coup.
We also need some kind of antitrust enforcement against the forced bundling of products from the distinct categories of hardware devices, network services, and client software.
Those should leave us with a similar environment to the EU. Beyond that, sure tax away, whatever. If we've done our job right domestically, these services should be a lot easier to value in terms of subscription fees rather than nebulous values siphoned away from surveillance subjects.
The two-party system is fine. We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote.
The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life. But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
The efficacy of US democracy has eroded over time, and it's clear we're going to need reforms to preserve democratic governance for future generations.
Every branch of the federal government has experienced a decline in democratic accountability.
The House is so gerrymandered that only 10% of seats are remotely competitive each year, and it hasn't kept up with population growth.
The Senate is permanently gerrymandered, with state population differences that are far more disproportionate than what was originally designed for and intended when the Constitution was written.
This combined with hyper-partisanship prevents the US from accepting new states like Washington DC (population 700,000+) and Puerto Rico (population 3.2 million), depriving millions of US citizens from Congressional representation (no, non-voting representatives don't count).
The Supreme Court has become hyperpartisan, and appointments are a high stake circus that rely on arbitrary retirements and deaths. They need to be elected at this point to preserve democratic legitimacy.
As for the Presidency... the Electoral College has resulted in the election of the loser of a popular vote twice in 25 years.
I don't know how reform will happen, or if we'll ever see it in my lifetime but we desperately need it. The US government needs to be accountable to the people again.
Democracy is precious, and it's so tragic to see how much it's declined.
States with a total of 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The effort appears to be stalled, but there are 209 votes from states who've already passed the law (which is in effect only once 270+ electoral votes are reached).
The Supreme Court's composition can be changed with a law, and the most popular option appears to be 18 year terms, staggered so that there are two appointments for each presidential term. The court can also be expanded, and should be to 13 (one for each circuit).
Gerrymandering is a serious problem, and would properly be solved by coming up with some algorithmic way of drawing districts. But for practical purposes this unlikely to ever happen. But I'm hopeful because of the effort of Democratic states to recognize the gerrymandering and turning it into a standoff of sorts. To date, there's been no reason not to gerrymander if you can do it, and Republicans have seriously overreached.
> We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote.
The American two-party system gave massive power to a tiny fraction of the population, which the large Republican party then retconned into most of their members as their party platform. Now they're a large fraction of the population. I'd choose the approach where the small faction remains its own small faction, even if they occasionally get to pull the levers of power.
Is it? Many western countries are having more or less prominent populist right wing movements, and the two countries I can think of where that movement has gotten its hand in power on really significant issues during the last decade or so are UK and US. Both strongly two party systems at the time of the "interesting" developments. And I do not think a two party system is typical, I am sure there are some countries happily trodding along with their two political parties, but they are not the rule.
What every argument here against two-party systems is missing, is that it entrenches the vision "us vs them". You will always have that one enemy tribe, because your party will always point fingers to the other party. While in multiple, you are obliged to nuance, to talk about certain aspects, and suddenly you start talking politics, not parties. Not tribes.
No, its not, as anyone who has paid even a slight amount of attention to the study of comparative government among modern nominal representative democracies would recognize.
> We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote.
Parliamentary systems can be two-party and multiparty systems do not need to parliamentary, so you are starting with a false dichotomy. And the problem you describe is less often a problem with multiparty systems (parliamentary or otherwise) than two-party systems, because the reliance on ad hoc coalitions means that there is much more likely to be the option of replacing a faction that is leveraging its marginal role in creating a majority to wag a coalition that is a small part of, whereas a small faction within a major party in a two party system that is crucial to maintaining a partisan majority cannot practically be defied without the rest of the party surrendering its majority, giving it much more power than a minor coalition partner in a multiparty system.
(Parliamentary or semi-presidential systems are also generally better than presidential systems, but that's a whole different issue from the multiparty vs. two-party issue.)
> The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life.
The first two of those are also problems (though actually being a Presidential system is a bigger problem, and a problem without which the electoral college would be moot.) The third is simply inaccurate.
> But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
The Supreme Court decision on how amendments can be ratified (basically, however Congress decides) does not substantially limit what amendments can be passed. And it is the first two are set in the Constitution, the third (even using the correct current number of 9) is not, and can be changed (that the Supreme Court exists and that federal judges have lifetime tenure as federal judges are set in the Constitution, the number of seats on the Supreme Court, whether that number is fixed or floating over time, and the tenure of judges on the Supreme Court separate from their tenure as federal juddges is not; all of those can be changed by statute. If Congress wanted to make Supreme Court justices appointed for a fixed term of years from among the set of lifetime federal judges, that would be possible. If Congress kept lifetime tenure for justices, decided to have one appointed every 2 years regardless of the current size of the court, and have the Chief Justice appointed for 4 year terms from among the sitting justices, that would work too.)
I'm too lazy, but I hope someone is less lazy and would set up a Kickstarter and collect funds to be given to every resident of US Virgin Islands once they rejoined[1] Denmark. Would happily chip in a hundred or two for a good cause.
[1] Just learned that US Virgin islands are ex Danish colony US bought from Denmark about a century ago. In that agreement United States recognized Denmark's control over Greenland. Funny that.
I think a decent middle ground would be to allow contextual advertising and ban personalized advertising. That is, it would be fine to show you ads based on where you are, what you are doing or what you are searching on the internet, but not based on what you did on another website or where you had lunch yesterday.
Of course this would add friction for finding the appropriate targets but it would still allow pretty decent business for adtech. it just would be a bit different.
(I'm pretty sure that the line between contextual and personalized ads is blurry, but I leave that to be solved by lawmakers and judges. Its kind of their core competence. And to be clear, what I personally think should be done would be much, much stricter ban, but this is a compromise proposal I think should be agreeable by all parties who are the slightest interested in the harm current adtech is doing)
Don't forget Germany. If you look at the amount of PV built in Germany early this century and make some admittedly strong assumptions about learning curve, one could argue the Energiewende, then usually called failure, singlehandedly accelerated PV development by decades. I don't recall Germany ever credited on that.
If cheap LED light bulbs had been around we wouldn't have need legislation in the first place. Both Germany's solar subsidies and the EU prohibiting (high power) incandescent light bulbs were cases where existing alternatives were bad (solar was way too expensive to be practical, non-incandescent light bulbs sucked), but legislation intentionally created demand for them anyways in hopes that with demand there would be research and scaling effects that create better cheaper products. In both cases it worked, even if the transition was a bit painful in both cases.
Don't knock CFLs. We still have the very first 2 we brought back in 1985, 13W Philips Prismatics. Been in continuous use, both outdoors under a portico. Still going strong.
They're fragile as heck, though, and contain mercury (albeit a small quantity in a relatively less-harmful form). Breakage needs to be handled appropriately, and disposal is as hazardous waste.
LEDs are more efficient, offer better (and often more flexible) light quality, are damndably rugged, and have far less toxic material load. Given the balance, I'd be swapping out CFLs (and have been).
I remember some old tidbit about the American westward expansion, most railroad projects failed and went bankrupt and were sold for pennies on the dollar to the ultimate owners.
A lot of them got built with per-mile subsidies and cashed out via shoddy construction. The ones that focused on long-term financial sustainability more often did fine, but it is a lesson in perverse incentives (though some would argue that afterwards cheap overbuilt lines facilitated much faster and more extensive westward expansion of people).
Just today there was a newsletter from Construction Physics about Strap Rail. Literally wooden rails with a iron plate strapped on top put in the mud. Only in the US, 10 times cheaper. But more expensive to maintain and gone in years instead of decades for normal iron rails though.
By building the initial rails cheaply, they could then bring in equipment and supplies over those rails to rebuild the railroad to a much better quality, and at a lower cost than if they had to bring that equipment and supplies in without the rails in the first instance.
That doesn't mean they always actually invested the money to rebuild properly... but it was sound engineering theory.
The lesson, which we learned in the dot-com era and will likely learn again in the AI era, is that the benefits of step-change new infrastructure technology do not accrue in the long run to the infrastructure builders—the technology only creates the step-change if it finds its way to being a commodity!—but diffuses throughout the new, ultimately much larger, more productive economy as a whole.
But since then there was an endless stream of negative press especially in English speaking countries against German energy policies, so not much of this positive comments are still remembered.
I wonder if one could write a skill called something like "Ask the damn user" that the model could use when e.g. all needed files are not in the context.
For this year's numbers there are two possible stories that come to my mind:
1. The jobs are going ~constantly downhill and any new, revised number is going to be worse than previous
2. There is a conspiracy and initially the numbers are systematically inflated and/or afterwards deflated because reasons... that are completely incomprehensible to me. I don't even understand if this conspiracy theory should be pro or against trump.
> People will have less or no motivation to create them
Not sure if we surf the same internets... In the web I am surfing, the more "motivation" (trying to get ad revenue) the author has, the crappier the content is. If I want to find high quality information, invariably I am seeking authors with no "motivation" whatsoever to produce the content (wikipedia, hacker news, reddit with a heavy filter etc.) I'm pretty sure we would be better off if the whole ad industry vanished.
No, it's much worse than that. In real life you talk about pages and pages of documents and power points and meetings after meetings if you happen to need a computer/server/configuration that's not in the pre-approved list. (I really wish I was exaggerating. And of course no, not all employers are like this to state the obligatory obvious.)
> We know that universal solutions can’t exist and that all practical solutions require exotic high-dimensionality computational constructs that human brains will struggle to reason about. This has been the status quo since the 1980s. This particular set of problems is hard for a reason.
This made me a bit curious. Would you have any pointers to books/articles/search terms if one wanted to have a bit deeper look on this problem space and where we are?
I'm not aware of any convenient literature but it is relatively obvious once someone explains it to you (as it was explained to me).
At its root it is a cutting problem, like graph cutting but much more general because it includes things like non-trivial geometric types and relationships. Solving the cutting problem is necessary to efficiently shard/parallelize operations over the data models.
For classic scalar data models, representations that preserve the relationships have the same dimensionality as the underlying data model. A set of points in 2-dimensions can always be represented in 2-dimensions such that they satisfy the cutting problem (e.g. a quadtree-like representation).
For non-scalar types like rectangles, operations like equality and intersection are distinct and there are an unbounded number of relationships that must be preserved that touch on concepts like size and aspect ratio to satisfy cutting requirements. The only way to expose these additional relationships to cutting algorithms is to encode and embed these other relationships in a (much) higher dimensionality space and then cut that space instead.
The mathematically general case isn't computable but real-world data models don't need it to be. Several decades ago it was determined that if you constrain the properties of the data model tightly enough then it should be possible to systematically construct a finite high-dimensionality embedding for that data model such that it satisfies the cutting problem.
Unfortunately, the "should be possible" understates the difficulty. There is no computer science literature for how one might go about constructing these cuttable embeddings, not even for a narrow subset of practical cases. The activity is also primarily one of designing data structures and algorithms that can represent complex relationships among objects with shape and size in dimensions much greater than three, which is cognitively difficult. Many smart people have tried and failed over the years. It has a lot of subtlety and you need practical implementations to have good properties as software.
About 20 years ago, long before "big data", the iPhone, or any current software fashion, this and several related problems were the subject of an ambitious government research program. It was technically successful, demonstrably. That program was killed in the early 2010s for unrelated reasons and much of that research was semi-lost. It was so far ahead of its time that few people saw the utility of it. There are still people around that were either directly involved or learned the computer science second-hand from someone that was but there aren't that many left.
But then that sounds more like that person explained it wrong. They didn't explain why it is necessary to reduce to GRAPHCUT, it seems to me to beg the question. We should not assume this is true based on some vague anthropomorphic appeal to spatial locality, surely?
It isn’t a graph cutting problem, graph cutting is just a simpler, special case of this more general cutting problem (h/t IBM Research). If you can solve the general problem you effectively get efficient graph cutting for free. This is obviously attractive to the extent you can do both complex spatial and graph computation at scale on the same data structure instead of specializing for one or the other.
The challenge with cutting e.g. rectangles into uniform subsets is that logical shard assignment must be identical regardless of insertion order and in the absence of an ordering function, with O(1) space complexity and without loss of selectivity. Arbitrary sets of rectangles overlap, sometimes heavily, which is the source of most difficulty.
Of course, with practical implementations write scalability matters and incremental construction is desirable.
Well, previously you said that it (presumably "it" broadly refers to spatial reasoning AI) is a "high dimensional complex type cutting problem".
You said this is obvious once explained. I don't see this as obvious, rather, I see this as begging the question--the research program you were secretly involved in wanted to parallelize the engineering of it so obviously they needed some fancy "cutting algorithm" to make it possible.
The problem is that this conflated the scientific statement of what "spatial reasoning" is. There's no obvious explanation why spatial reasoning should intuitively be some kind of cutting problem however you wish to define or generalize a cutting problem. That's not how good CS research is done or explained.
In fact I could (mimicking your broad assertions) go so far as to claim, the project was doomed to fail because they weren't really trying to understand something, they want to make something without understanding it as the priority. So they were constrained by the parallel technology that they had at the time, and when the computational power available didn't pan out they reached a natural dead end.
Indexing is a special case of AI. At the limit, optimal cutting and learning are equivalent problems. Non-trivial spatial representations push these two things much closer together than is normally desirable for e.g. indexing algorithms. Tractability becomes a real issue.
Practically, scalable indexing of complex spatial relationships requires what is essentially a type of learned indexing, albeit not neural network based.
Looking through some old DARPA budget docs[1], it seems like there's a chance that what's being discussed here falls under DARPA's "PE 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY" initiative, project TT-06.
It was a national security program with no public face. I was recruited into it because I solved a fundamental computer science problem they were deeply interested in. I did not get my extensive supercomputing experience in academia. It was a great experience if you just wanted to do hardcore computer science research, which at the time I did.
There are several VCs with knowledge of the program. It is obscure but has cred with people that know about it. I’ve raised millions of dollars off the back of my involvement.
A lot of really cool computer science research has happened inside the government. I think it is a bit less these days but people still underestimate it.
I'm not surprised that the government does great research, but I wonder how much good does that research does, if it's unpublished and disappears after budget cuts.
If you can identify blocks of code you need to write that are easy to define reasonably well, easy to review/verify that it is written correctly but still burdensome to actually write, LLMs are your new best friend. I don't know about how other people think/write, but I seem to have a lot of that kind of stuff on my table. The difficult part to outsource to LLMs is how to connect these easy blocks, but luckily thats the part I find fun in coding, not so much writing the boring simple stuff.
