An easy counterargument is that - there are millions of species and an uncountable number of organisms on Earth, yet humans are the only known intelligent ones. (In fact high intelligence is the only trait humans have that no other organism has.) That could perhaps indicate that intelligence is a bit harder to "find" than you're claiming.
That humans are the only known intelligent ones is a very dubious statement. The most intelligent, sure, but several species of birds, great apes, and cetaceans all display significant intelligence.
> The most intelligent, sure, but several species of birds, great apes, and cetaceans all display significant intelligence.
Relative to all other non-humans. If someone is reducing intelligence to a boolean, the threshold can of course go anywhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone can get a dog to (technically) pass a GCSE (British highschool) exam (not full subject just exam) for a language other than English, because one dog learned a thousand words and that might just technically be enough for a British student to get a minimum pass in a French GCSE listening test.
But nobody sane ever hired a non human animal to solve a problem that humans consider intellectually challenging.
If intelligence is ability to learn from few examples, all mammals (and possibly all animals I'm not sure about insects) beat all machine learning and by a large margin. If it is the ability to learn a lot and synthesise combinations from those things, LLMs beat any one of us by a large margin and are only weak when compared to humanity as a whole rather than a specific human. If it is peak performance, narrow AI (non-LLM) beats us in a handfull of cases, as do non-human animals in some cases, while we beat all animals and all ML in the majority of things we care about.
Driving is still an example of a case where humans hold the peak performance.
> If someone is reducing intelligence to a boolean, the threshold can of course go anywhere.
Indeed, it would be very surprising if multiple species had exactly the same intelligence. It's more likely there this variable samples some distribution. Of course the species at the top can set the threshold so that all other species don't meet it, if they feel like declaring themselves uniquely intelligent. But that's not very useful.
> Driving is still an example of a case where humans hold the peak performance.
One of the problems with notability standards on Wikipedia is that, when an article which doesn't meet the notability standards slips through the cracks, it's unlikely to ever get deleted.
The result of this is that there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia which don't follow its own notability rules. This can be confusing and frustrating for people - like, what do you mean the Idris programming language has a Wikipedia article and Odin doesn't? Who even uses Idris?
But the reality is that, the "Idris" article also doesn't meet notability. One day someone decided to write it, and the simple fact is nobody noticed that it wasn't notable, so it stayed. But someone happened to be around to notice the writing of "Odin" and delete it.
He's not talking about the number of violins, he's talking about the quality of them. Top-notch violins cost hundreds of thousands or even millions. But it's mostly famous solo musicians who own such instruments - an entire orchestra is not playing with those.
Selling inference is not fundamentally different from selling compute - you amortize the lifetime cost of owning and operating the GPUs and then turn that into a per-token price. The risk of loss would be if there is low demand (and thus your facilities run underutilized), but I doubt inference providers are suffering from this.
Where the long-term payoff still seems speculative, is for companies doing training rather than just inference.
There’s a lot of debate over what the useful lifespan of the hardware is though. A number that seems very vibes based determines if these datacenters are a good investment or disastrous.
I specifically remember this debate coming up when the H100 was the only player on the table and AMD came out with a card that was almost as fast in at least benchmarks but like half the cost. I haven't seen a follow up with real world use though and as a home labber I know that in the last three weeks the support for AMD stuff at least has gotten impressively useful covering even cuda if you enjoy pain and suffering.
What I'm curious about are what about the other stuff out there such as the ARM and tensor chips.
I kind of doubt that most judges are going to agree with a "code is speech" argument. I think it's more likely that the courts view code as a mechanism, and so this is more like requiring cars to have airbags.
Though this does bring to fore the issue of enforcement. Nobody can stop you from building a custom car which has no airbags. Where enforcement happens is when you try to get it registered (thus making it legal to drive on public roads). That's when the government would stop you.
Curious how such enforcement would work for operating systems. We could all just mod our OS's to remove/bypass age verification. The government doesn't (currently, yet) have a legal nor physical mechanism to prevent this.
The author didn't spend more than, maybe, 30 seconds thinking this through? Information I could've gotten in 3 seconds by opening a screen and looking at a line item, I now have to extract by writing a paragraph to an AI agent (and cross my fingers that nothing I said was ambiguous or misunderstood). And that's supposedly an upgrade?
> I would also guess that sports betting sites like DraftKings or FanDuel would be even less efficient
Your strategy doesn't work on sportbooks to begin with, because bookmakers don't move the odds with the action.
That is, there is no such phenomenon as "the over is exciting therefore overpriced". Bookmakers price purely based on facts and statistics. Their pricing isn't affected by excitement nor by how many people are betting a certain way.
> Bookmakers price purely based on facts and statistics. Their pricing isn't affected by excitement nor by how many people are betting a certain way.
A bookmaker is a market maker, and they ideally want to end up with no net interest in a position. They then take guaranteed profit in the bid-ask spread, which in sportsbooks is the 'vig'. Bookmakers who adjust their odds in real-time don't have to be particularly clever about the fundamentals, just responsive to the competing demands on either side.
A bookmaker who intentionally takes a position on a game is the equivalent of a proprietary trader or hedge fund. It's potentially more profitable, but it's also adversarial against 'sharp' traders.
Bookmakers who set odds at the beginning and don't move with the action must set larger bid-ask spreads to compensate.
>Bookmakers price purely based on facts and statistics. Their pricing isn't affected by excitement nor by how many people are betting a certain way.
If this were true, lines would never move unless there was breaking news, but we see lines move all the time without there being any material change to those "facts and statistics".
I think the distinction is that sports betting companies are basically casinos, need to guard their edge, and although they will tolerate some moving of lines, they will kick out players who consistently eat their edge, and will rig the lines at a place where they can still profit.
Different from a prediction market like Polymarket or Kalshi whose income probably comes mostly from transaction fees rather than house edge. Otherwise these platforms wouldn't welcome bots so much. Bots => efficient pricing + transaction volume => profit for them
The sustainability of prediction markets depends heavily on continuous liquidity provision - without bots and market makers, spreads would widen and user experience would degrade quickly
These are all reasons supporting my point as they would make sports betting platforms less efficient meaning it would be easier to find arbitrage in their prices (at least temporarily, until you're booted for being too successful).
Without there being any material change you can see. If you had access to all the tips and data and insider information that sportbooks operate with, you could be a bookmaker too.
>If you had access to all the tips and data and insider information that sportbooks operate with
Can you give an example of what you're talking about here? Because it sounds like you're accusing these large publicly trade companies of participating in organized crime. There is regulation when it comes to sports betting that doesn't exist with general prediction markets. An athlete can't just feed a sportsbook "insider information" in the way you're suggesting. The only private info that they are supposed to have is better behavior details that you claim doesn't factor into their decisions.
Books like DraftKings and FanDuel get their lines from market makers like Circa. Market makers use a variety of information for setting initial lines (you'll have to go ask them), but one of the main ways they move lines afterwards is professional action. That is, if some person or entity who Circa knows to be a profitable professional better puts down a large bet in a certain direction, Circa will move their line in that direction.
Where did that entity get that information, and how are they right so often? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
>That is, if some person or entity who Circa knows to be a profitable professional better puts down a large bet in a certain direction, Circa will move their line in that direction.
Well that's the source of our confusion then. I agree with this, but it conflicts with what you said a few comments up:
>because bookmakers don't move the odds with the action.
reply