Which is good numbers in the cancer treatment arena.
>> “We look forward to continued constructive conversations with the FDA as we move forward in our plan to initiate a phase 3 trial in previously treated HNSCC mid-2024 and prepare for a potential phase 3 trial evaluating the combination of petosemtamab and pembrolizumab [Keytruda] in previously untreated patients."
I understand the caution, but I firmly believe oncologists need to get more aggressive with multi-line treatments.
You seem to be assuming that UBI qualitative effects are scale invariant for both population and time. Why do you assume that?
There is a tendency among many people to give precedence to a scientific study over pure reasoning even when the degree of relevance of the scientific study is tiny. It’s like schools don’t teach how to determine if a study is applicable and so people often do it very clumsily. This is a dangerous error.
Looks you still have to make your own template to stringify the prompt that could use JSON/XML/whatever, so this is just stores variations of prompts. Doesn't seem relevant.
Technology is an international undertaking. We should be grateful that English has become the common language. It would be so much harder if we needed to be polyglots in addition to our technical knowledge.
I have read several thousand academic papers in my career. In general I don't find the quality of the writing to be as poor as you suggest. Which makes me question whether you are selecting the papers for technical quality.
My process is to read the abstract, look at the authors' affiliations and the references. Those three items give me a sense of how much weight to give the paper. Then I skim the paper, reading the method, results and conclusion. Only strong papers get a more careful reading. So, yes at that stage I might notice the quality of the actual writing. Understandably some international institutions may not have had access to competent English technical editors.
A 30 second conversation with any Ukrainian living in Ukraine right now would clear this confusion up for you. Not getting people needlessly killed is awfully high up on the priority list. If you think Russia is above bombing polling places, you'd be wrong.
Depends on where you live. In a hot, humid climate, that thermal mass works against you because it never cools off enough to let you be passively cool. In a desert that gets cold at night despite hot days, it can work.
It’s not at all about your product, it’s about your customer, and you’re going to likely need both schemes.
Usage based pricing works well for customers who value flexibility more than predictability, and subscription pricing works well for those that prefer predictability (and probably want a discount). It makes sense. Customers in the first camp are growth oriented or otherwise undergoing a transformation of some kind. The latter group has stable operation and is looking to optimize.
Usage based pricing should be more expensive than subscription pricing to make up for the lower value multiple it gets should you raise or exit.
Actually I'm not often stuck in traffic, because I live somewhere with a big enough road network to service the local population, which is dispersed widely enough that we don't have huge amounts of density. We also don't have natural geographic chokepoints, which was a common cause of traffic congestion in Seattle, where I used to live.
> this perspective is probably only true for 0.001% of people that actually follow Sam closely
It’s corroded his credibility in D.C. and Brussels for a generation. He raised his profile tremendously right before people credibly called him a liar. It’s like he lofted an adversary’s payload into orbit. He will still get an audience with anyone, as he deserves. But people fact check him in a way they didn’t before and don’t with others. Even those who support his policy priorities, and with whom he and his team talk frequently. (OpenAI’s GR is between incompetent and non-existent.)
It isn't a quantitative model unless you give a prediction of some kind. In this case, dates (or date ranges) would make sense.
1. When do you predict catastrophic global warming/climate change? How do you define "catastrophic"? (Are you pegging to an average temperature increase? [1])
2. When do you predict AGI?
How much uncertainty do you have in each estimate? When you stop and think about it, are you really willing to wager that (1) will happen before (2)? You think you have enough data to make that bet?
I mean, we do and have, they just haven't yet been explicitly targeted at critical infrastructure. When they hit critical infrastructure, it has been more of an accident, that gets papered over by just paying the ransom (because it was a financially motivated attack) or the US government getting sufficiently pissed off to intervene directly state-to-state (which kinda happened with the Colonial Pipeline one in 2021).
If the attacks were targeted, were destructively motivated instead of financially motivated, there was no "kill switch", government threats ceased to work, etc... it'd be pretty bad.
We always did that in school where I’m from. I figured it was quasi military training. Here’s a topographic map and a compass kids, now run a few kilometers to the spots marked on your map and report back
One reason, is probably because retrofitting security is a freaking nightmare.
In my opinion, security (as well as Quality, and things like error handling, accessibility, and localization) is something that needs to be planned and implemented, from Day One.
Do a better job from the start, and the cost will drop like a stone.
The obvious reason behind this is that otherwise code may be copied into the NetBSD codebase which may have been licensed under an incompatible (or proprietary) license.
I don't understand why people are just mad about OpenAI for their pioneering work towards AGI as if they are the only one who has skin in this game. OpenAI, Google, NVidia, MS, Meta, almost all the AI researchers who publish meaningful work in top literatures, are pushing the boundaries today and has their fair share of responsibility. They are all in it for something, money, power, control, fame, curiosity, academic recognition, whatever the incentives are. At this rate, it's already a race to the bottom and I don't believe the first place AGI was born would be able to kill it off. AGI is like nukes, it's so powerful that nobody will take the risks seriously until they have it, and nobody is going to stop pursuing it because everyone else is chasing it. If OpenAI slows down, Google will take the lead. If the US slows down, China will take the lead. That's basically the doomed future we are facing in reality.
