Nietzsche also described it well when noting there are those who deem themselves nobles and feel they are righteously above the laws and those who derive their identity from suffering under the same laws.
It's interesting if you think of Solidarity in these terms.
There is a kind of solidarity of persistence under harsh natural conditions. And another kind of solidarity of persistence under laws.
So it might follow that the former group, those who feel above laws, also lack in a feeling of Solidarity. That would suggest a strong adherence to Individualism as a key component to their identity.
Being successful or not in your wealth doesn't make you right or wrong about anything with the exception of maybe running the business that generated your wealth.
Nietzsche presented two prototypical sets of human who interface with laws and ethics. He described why those believes exists and are self-reaffirming even if they are puzzling from the other side.
Based on the comments its even shallower than ad-hominem. It's loose association to the "bad" they learned from the "good". Therefore everything from bad is bad. It's team sports thinking.
If I had to guess they probably read some wired article saying tech people are followers of Nietzsche based on one guy quoting one thing one time. Although probably used more dramatic terms like Nazis or fascist or something.
Not a follow of Nietzsche and critical of him but this is just unfair the sort of pandering to the audience that is required for a popular philosophy channel on youtube is something he would never debase himself to do (or probably any serious thinker).
It's deeply embarrassing to be a whore even if it's well payed.
You jest, but that's the point a lot of people here are missing: Nietzsche would fit right in with the YouTuber bros, right up to the ignominious downfall.
No, not really. Nietzsche was a trained philologist with a brilliant academic career, before he ended it early because of health issues. He was leaps and bounds more educated and knowledgable than 99% of people making philosophy content on YouTube. He was also a pretty meek and gentle person, even if his ideas are anything but.
Most people haven't actually read him though, and their knowledge of his work comes from poorly-researched YouTube videos.
I tried, even in German on the theory that he was badly translated. Nietzsche was an undisciplined writer and a beefing gossip, among other infuriating characteristics.
One aspect missing from TFA is that in biological brains a lot of the training is performed during query time. If we assume 1 GB of DNA is enough to encode the brain's overall structure we still do need training data (e.g. visual/auditorial/tactile) to build out the strength of the synaptic connections.
What's weird though is how consistent it is, even across models to some extent. Were the RLHF people given a really specific style guide?
While I agree that no-one used to write like that as a whole before, all the elements can be found in different places. Short sentences to avoid discouraging poor readers. Maximally impactful statements are commonly used in marketing or other business communication that's focused on selling what it's saying. A bullet-pointy style is used in many kinds of business communication. Etc.
It makes me wonder if part of what happened was a kind of melding of common styles from several different kinds of writing.
Don't talk about other people in such a way. If we had a way in Claude to mark a word/token and downvote/reduce it logits then it wouldn't be to hard to send loadbearing to token valhalla.
In the future, I hope we get a way to randomize the language idiosyncrasies and/or personalities better.
The inevitable conclusion of retraining on the (now AI generated) web is that models begin to use the lower bits of fidelity in output text to pass messages to their future selves.
I didn't mean it as a criticism, just a statement of fact. I can't do it either. It's difficult to say what about a writing style is bad beyond vague descriptions.
I would say it is sad that there are people who use Grok when there are so many other choices available which don't come with the issues of supporting Musk.
It is not all just 'politics'. Take a stand on some issues. It doesn't cost much not to use Grok.
Generally the default fund in a decent 401(k) (employer managed but largely employee funded retirement plan) will be a "target date retirement fund" that contains a mix of equities and bonds according to the expected risk tolerance of someone at that age, and generally the equity component is also split between US and foreign equities.
I understand why you'd say bonds in tax-advantaged accounts and equities outside, but I don't know why you would put cash in the former. Unless by cash you mean money market funds or similar. But even still, qualified equity dividends are yielding more these days than bond interest to the extent that the total tax is usually higher, so you might still prefer to reverse what you said.
My equities are highly concentrated in tech (which tends to either not pay dividends or prefers stock buy backs). The rest of my equities is VTI (~1% dividend) and VXUS (~2.3% dividends).
When I say cash, I meant value stored in money market and $SGOV. I'm actually experimenting with using my 401k/ira to invest in private equity (VC) funds, so I am holding cash (money market and $SGOV) in those accounts to ensure I have the capital for capital calls.
Disagree on that being the advice in the US. Most basic investment advice (and target-date funds) will use a three-fund portfolio containing US, ex-US, and bonds.
True but also each day they open slots due to cancelations or often have a system where you can just go in the morning and wait for somebody to not show up. Or allow things to be done online.
It is as with all bureaucracy: you got to be crafty to navigate it. For instance they will tell you exactely what you need to bring for each type of appointment but it still requires you to carefully read and do the work of preparing those things.
That's because you get (particularly initially) quite some reduction of risk with little loss of expected return. Diversification (incl. across asset classes) is the only free lunch in finance.
If you want to argue that bonds and stocks have become more correlated, sure, but we do not know what hits us next.
One key thing with MoE I am still not understanding is why we don't keep the same expert in memory for a larger number of tokens than 1. Why do we route to some other expert every token? Wouldn't it be more memory efficient to generate at least 2,3,4,8,12 or 32 tokens and then swap the experts?
Expert choice actually happens per layer, not just per token. It's not a limitation when doing inference at scale since all experts are then loaded in fast VRAM anyway. It's mostly just a way to enforce some kind of model sparsity and save on compute.
The new version of Apple Foundation Model (AFM) Core Advanced is an exception, it actually routes experts per prompt (with sporadic rerouting perhaps?) which is more in line with what you're proposing. But this will theoretically make the model less smart than a similar one where experts are picked per layer.
