"says chief EU research diplomat" -- leaving off half the sentence sure does change the quote.

Also from the article:

"Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation."

For someone in the top position of EU's research leadership, she sure does seem to suck at explaining and arguing her statements, which should be the no. 1 skill of academics in research.

We have another article about the funding thing on the front page, so it's not a hard pattern to work out?

I’m not sure it does. Particularly since the diplomat is outgoing

Nothing would please our enemies more than people not being able to talk to each other. This decline of trust is not accidental.

OAI also got talent mined. Their top intellectual leaders left after fight with sama, then Meta took a bunch of their mid-senior talent, and Google had the opposite. They brought Noam and Sergey back.

counterpoint: we should make energy abundant enough that it really doesn't matter if sama wants to generate gpt-shirt ads or not.

we have the capability, we just stopped making power more abundant.

I think we can say the pause we took was reasonable once we realized the environmental impact of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but if now that can ensure further growth won’t do it, let’s make sure we restart, just clean this time.

Is this the "fault" or is it just the result of rational economic actors?

When rational economic actors have enough power, and use that power to decrease the competitiveness of the market, they gain increasing amounts of "fault".

Oligopolies don't get to use the market forces defense.

If you don't mind stretching your brain a bit, Wittgenstein was obsessed with this notion. https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducMaru.htm#:~:text=Witt...

Mars transit takes far longer than one week. And their plan is in orbit refueling so getting a single starship to Mars takes more than one ship.

I'm sure someone else has mentioned this but your video on the main page correctly has GRPO the first time it's introduced but then every time you mention it after that -- you've swapped it to GPRO.

Which makes me ask why we even need smoking fees then?

AI may actually be the death of capitalism. Markets are no longer efficient when pricing models are opaque and personalized.

This is an underrated take. Free markets don't work in information war zones.

The basis of the free market ideology is that rational actors with perfect information will result in competition that produces high-value trades.

AI based information warfare between buyers and sellers is going to have a Darwinian effect on marketplaces that evolves sellers that are primarily skilled in adversarial and highly targeted pricing tactics.

This is Delta's choice, though. There are still quite a few other airlines, for the "average" flight, and fliers still reserve the right to vote with their wallets if they perceive better value elsewhere, meaning Delta may have to adjust to that (depending on the risk they're willing to take/how accurate their personalized pricing models are).

> and fliers still reserve the right to vote with their wallets if they perceive better value elsewhere

Yup. Most likely outcome is passengers won’t care.

I think they are talking about the technical definition of free markets and the mathematical result that they result in efficient pricing under some conditions (one of the conditions is perfect pricing information).

We aren’t in an ideal capitalist system in the theoretical sense, of course. It is just a model. But it is maybe worthwhile to keep tabs on how far we’re diverged from it…

Looks like an opportunity to sell a price negotiation AI to all consumers. Get paid on both sides of the AI wars.

Free markets might be in trouble. Capitalism might survive just fine, right? What is capitalism anyway (ima technical sense, as distinct from free markets). I think it is something about capital owning the means of production or something like that.

It's silly, but in the LLM world - "open source" is usually used to mean "weights are published". This is not to be confused with the software licensing meaning of "open source".

The more tasteful corners of the LLM world use "open weights" instead of "open source" for licenses that aren't OSI.