I couldn’t disagree more. Most of my company’s backend code is written in Scala, and most of our engineers dislike it because the language is difficult to understand, has way too many features, and has many ways to solve the same problem. I don’t want Rust to continue down this path, and I already worry with some of the syntactic sugar and type system additions being discussed that it already has.

A language’s type system doesn’t need to model every possible type of guarantee. It just needs to provide a type safe way to do 95% of things and force its users to conform to use the constructs it provides. Otherwise it becomes a buggy hodge podge of features that interact in poor and unpredictable ways. This is already the case in Scala; we’ve discovered almost 20 bugs in the compiler in the past year.

Apple’s hardware teams are seriously running laps around their software teams. Which is odd, because historically, it’s been the opposite.

Until iPad OS actually becomes capable for complex work and multitasking, I can’t see what the benefit of strapping such a powerful chip to an iPad is.

I'm curious, how much does this weigh? I've ridden e-bikes a few times, and it's always surprising how much heavier they are than ordinary bikes. I can't imagine how heavy this must be.

It seems like this problem (differences in how humans and LLMs use probabilistic language) and hallucination are one in the same. LLMs don’t have access to information about how confident they are, so they always choose the most likely response, even if the most likely response isn’t actually that likely. Whereas if a human is unconfident, they’ll express that instead of choosing the most likely response.

Of course, LLMs can still speak about probabilities and mimic uncertainty, but that’s likely (heh) coming from their training data on the subject matter, not their actual confidence.

Humans are interesting because they employ a two-phased approach: when we’re learning, we fake confidence (you’d never write “I don’t know” on a test unless you truly had nothing of value to say), but during inference, we communicate our confidence. Some humans suffer from underconfidence or overconfidence, but most just seem to know innately how to do this.

Can anyone who works on LLMs clarify whether my understanding is correct?

The article cites Amazon prohibiting sellers from selling their products for less on other platforms as anticompetitive behavior. I don’t doubt that this is happening, nor that it’s anticompetitive.

That being said, anyone who’s operated a two-sided marketplace knows that one of the biggest problems is consumers using your site as an index, and then seeking to dodge your fee by meeting with the seller on another platform, where they don’t have to pay it. This was a big problem for my startup.

This is a negative externality, because they’re extracting value from your platform (the list of sellers, products, prices, ratings, etc.), without paying for that value. If left unchecked, this could make running the platform financially unviable. One way to prevent this is to paywall your platform, but not every consumer wants to pay a subscription.

I think it’d be fair for Amazon to prohibit sellers advertising other platforms on its own, but prohibiting them from offering lower prices outside of Amazon outright definitely seems anticompetitive.