The gap in capabilities is mostly quantitative and not qualitative.

Is it? I am on the fence on this, but it does seem like there are some qualitative improvements between the models.

Not related to your post, but a fact I keep mulling over. The fact I don't trust the current crop of LLM's enough and I consider LLM's as a tech will hit a ceiling pretty hard, it doesn't mean parallel improvement curves won't spring up out of other research that will lead to much higher capabilities than currently.

> but it does seem like there are some qualitative improvements between the models.

It could easily seem that way, I think, in a "quantity has a quality of its own" kind of way. When you can come to the same conclusion faster, that lets you iterate more; and sometimes when you iterate you find more things.

> Is it?

Yes, it is.

My read is that the improvements in quality are due to excessive use of "thinking" tokens (so, higher quantity and brute force), so I agree with that.

That's one (Marxist) definition of it, but the movement is much broader and more varied than that.

What else could it mean? There are anarcho- and democratic socialists, sure, but their end goal is still workers owning the means of production.

When competition has no rules it resorts to people banging each other over their heads with clubs.

People argue for less regulations until they are the ones eating crow.

Disheartening. macOS seems to get less and less support in a way. For example some of the Blizzard remakes don't run on macOS but the originals do.

I knew Blizzard was abandoning macOS when Overwatch didn't ship for it. I assume there must be a decent amount of Mac users playing WoW seeing as it still works on macOS and transitioned to ARM. Diablo 3 only ever got an ARM build because, apparently, Blizzard they replaced the 2010(?) Mac Pro that they were using to test Mac builds of the game with a Studio.

"Buy more RAM" usually isn't the thing I want to hear when my linter is slow.

There is a qualitative difference between unsafe Rust and Zig as far as I know.

I don't think you have specified that "," is used to pick up stuff in the bar below the log.

it's not. pickup is auto

Climate change is too soft of a term. Maybe that's why it doesn't interest people who like to declare war on things.

The targeted term must be something that is clearly human made, something that sounds undeniably bad and something that is easily understood by everyone at first glance:

_War on Pollution_

Nature is good, pollution is bad. People who pollute are _obviously bad_ and they do bad things. Pollution is wasteful and ugly. Yuck!

Also it's more general than climate change. Ocean plastic is also bad. Chemical, electronic and light pollution etc.

The people who think of chemtrails and 5g waves. They really hate pollution so much, they see it everywhere. Give them a war that they can join in.

These corporations exist and do work. Worker owned companies have their own challenges and their own advantages.

For example they tend to be more stable during crisis, because workers tend to vote for lowering salaries/benefits temporarily rather than doing layoffs. So they retain talent better. But they also tend to have difficulty to grow quickly, for obvious reasons.

Besides full on coops, there are also plenty of examples that are hybrids (partially worker owned).

> they would get their face eaten by other more efficient and ruthless corporations

You're possibly of assuming that a company needs to have an adversarial relationship to their workers in order to be competitive. I don't think that's generally true. This approach has advantages in specific situations, but disadvantages in others.

Im literally saying the opposite that no adversarial relationship needs to exist.

That’s exactly why you don’t need worker owned companies

I think you make a point that is worthy of discussion, but the first sentence is unnecessarily hostile. The comment you responded to already made a caveat that they might be too cynical.

Fair