It’s not a reasonable comparison. In China, every corporation is de facto state run. The Party is in the boardroom and the executives are members of the Party. The CCP will build entire mega cities or pump money into this industry or that according to their plan. China isn't a "state-run" economy but a conditional-autonomy one. Private firms operate freely until they collide with Party priorities. Then the state wins decisively and without due process.
I'm honestly not sure why this is seen so negatively. It seems to be working pretty well for them, perhaps we should do similar instead of whining about others being more effective?
Another point of comparison we might make, how close is Trump's desired increase to the US Defense budget to what China is spending on industrial subsidies? It looks relatively close to numbers in these research papers.
It looks like the curve is flattering, and the current state actually looks slightly cherry picked (it matches a previous spike that looks a bit of an outlier before the result went down). The longer they train, the more they risk getting scooped by another release by someone else. Etc etc it's a judgement call based on all of these factors (and more, including cost/occupying a big cluster as you mention)
+1 at some point, you need to expect to train a much better base model using everything you've learnt. At the least, you probably want to bring on line the next 10 clever RL environments and ideas your team has been cooking up (which will pipeline into v2.7 etc.)
> I'm sure many of us would have made the same mistake.
From the reporting and commenting on this incident, that is not the impression I'm getting. This wasn't one bad call after getting half way down the runway, this was a continuous stream of bad decision making for the entire approach, with the copilot suggesting the pilot go around too.
Also: this kind of incident is very rare, so obviously, the vast majority of pilots don't make this mistake.
You should check out this podcast episode with two historians, tracing the influence of the Confederacy ideology all the way to the current Supreme Court:
Pretty much everything that has happened in the past has consequences today. It's the butterfly effect.
Slavery has existed as far back as history. The idea that people are created equal, and are equal under the law, is very, very new, and that idea has resulted in a great many positive things happening.
Even 4.8 has its quirks. I just had a bizarre session tonight where it essentially did no work in the whole session and just told me to go to sleep. I'm used to the "go to sleep" thing, but not to it dodging the work. That's new. First time I've had the sensation of "the model accomplished nothing during this session."
I've been working with GLM 5.3 Flash lately (including while it was Ox Alpha), and it reminds me of how much fun talking to Claude used to be. It can make me laugh in the middle of work the way the Claudes used to.
Roomba was not competitive in the market, no amount of Amazon market manipulation would have changed that. Best case scenario, Amazon would have invested in making it competitive. Worst case, their engineers would have been absorbed into Amazon's warehouse robotics projects.
Is either of those worse than what actually happened: the company is now a zombie brand for a Chinese company?
Of course Amazon would have changed that. You would go on Amazon and search for "robot vacuum" and Amazon would put iRobot at the top of the results. Review manipulation on the platform would be trivial.
Amazon could email/push notification/text customers asking for reviews of iRobot vacuums but then not do the same for competing vacuums, skewing their reviews higher (asking for reviews boosts ratings by gathering opinions from happy customers who usually don't bother writing a review). Competing brands potentially don't even have your contact information to ask for a review.
Go on Amazon right now and search for "usb cable." There's a giant banner at the top that recommends the Amazon Basics brand, three across horizontally, which on my desktop monitor takes up nearly 50% of the screen real estate. Then below it are the Anker cables that you're more likely to be looking for.
They would have almost certainly been manipulating pricing on them as well. For example, they could take the strategy of lowering the price of the vacuums to break even or sell as a loss leader, but use them as a data-gathering robot in your house to help Amazon sell more of everything else. They could make their Alexa smart home platform preferential to iRobot or lock out competing models.
Robot vacuums are a consumer goods category that is heavily skewed toward Amazon.com as the place of purchase compared to other retailers.
I think "zombie brand owned by a Chinese company" is actually preferable, yes. They still operate and sell vacuums competing with the other robot vacuums on the market, and they aren't in service as household data collection bots for a monopoly e-commerce platform.
I don't think the ownership of the company being foreign or domestic is very relevant to the FTC's goal of preserving positive trade conditions. Would we think the iRobot situation was a bad outcome if iRobot was purchased by a foreign company we view more positively like Miele? We only think of it negatively due to anti-Chinese bias. iRobot being Chinese-owned is almost certainly the best possible outcome for preserving the amount of competition in the market.
Some of Evergrande's financial practices were somewhat ponzi-scheme-ish (new sales funded construction of previous buyers), and the US has imprisoned a few such schemers too.
None of this is specific to GitHub. The exact same problems will sometimes happen any time users and developers communicate, which is a basic requirement of developing useful software. I doubt GitHub issues are worse than mailing lists or any other mechanism.
They almost have to be - which users will be able to get to your issues page and which will be able to find a mailing list? You'll have a much more selective audience in the latter
If you trust Google's AI summary, China spends 4-5% of GDP on industrial subsidies, vs US at 0.4%. 10-12x as much.
reply