colinmorelli

7 ms·

1.
by colinmorelli 8mo ago
This scenario seems very different because nobody gave the person any material non-public information at all, they simply deduced it from their experience participating in the trial. This feels similar to the question of "can a passeng
2.
by colinmorelli 8mo ago
This comment is not really correct 1. The misappropriation theory of insider trading covers anyone who trades on material non public information sourced through a trusted relationship regardless of any fiduciary duty to the company. For exa
3.
by colinmorelli 11mo ago
OpenAI has over 5,000 employees. In addition to their headcount, they are now the highest valued private company in the world. They're going to have some leverage.
4.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
Fair, but I'd like to clarify that in my comment I had asked specifically for any sources indicating that the PFA limits were put in place by the prior administration, since you had made the claim: > Trump's EPA created these P
5.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
> If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the f
6.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states: > retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a haz
7.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
> in this specific case You could have quoted the beginning of the sentence, where the point was about this specific case, and how in this particular case, a gun clearly allowed an assassination that would have been challenging to pull o
8.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
Yeah I'm not suggesting the same process could apply in the US, I'm just trying to aggressively refute the point that guns are not the problem (or, at least, a major component of it). We need to be creative about solutions, but pe
9.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
This narrative isn't helpful. Even in this specific case, it's extremely unlikely anyone would have been able to get close enough to him with a knife to kill him without someone noticing. Guns allow you to kill 1) multiple people,
10.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
I'll take a shot at rationale for this perspective, which is similar to a peer comment: The tech is undoubtedly impressive, and I'm sure has a ton of headroom to grow (although I have no direct knowledge of this, but I'd take
11.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
To be fair, if those people are right, then NVIDIA's stock price (and revenue) is part of that bubble , so its not really evidence that this isn't a bubble. Time will tell if they're right or not. But it wouldn't be the
12.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
Both things can be true. The tech can be transformative, and the current valuations and burn rate can be wholly unsustainable in the short term. This is exactly what happened in the dotcom era. Whether or not this one is the same is impossi
13.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
Even if we accept as a premise that these models are doing "smart retrieval" and not "reasoning" (neither of which are being defined here, nor do I think we can tell from this tweet even if they were), it doesn't re
14.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
1,155 is the number of employees in the research office. The EPA overall had 16,155 employees in January 2025 [1]. [1] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-reduction-for...
15.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
It is absolutely possible for the unit economics of a product to be profitable and for the parent company to be losing money. In fact, it's extremely common when the company is bullish on their own future and thus they invest heavily i
16.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
This, similar to your other comment, is unrelated to my comment. This is about determining if AI can be a equivalent or better (defined as: achieving equal or better clinical outcomes) therapist than a human. That is a question that can be
17.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
I'm not exactly sure how this relates to my comment above. An analysis of an airline crash and a study are not the same thing. As it relates to study design, controlling for set and setting are part of the methodology. For example, mos
18.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
This is an interesting take. By this perspective, it's essentially impossible to ever gauge the efficacy of AI in doing anything, because the people who will know how to measure the quality of that thing are also the people who will be
19.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
You conveniently left out the first part of the sentence you quoted: > Currently available software may very well make human drivers both more comfortable and safe... Which is objectively not what Waymo does, and whether intentional or
20.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
Sorry, I should have clarified, but no this is not ChatGPT's self assessment. I am suggesting that today's best in class models (Gemini 2.5 Pro and o3, for example), when given the same context that a physician has access to (labs
21.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
For what it's worth this statement is actually not entirely correct anymore. Top-end models today are on par with diagnostic capabilities of physicians on average (across many specialties), and, in some cases, can outperform them when
22.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
The point is not that those things were meant when we said self driving cars. It's that, at every step along the way, there were a group of people who doubted that cars could do that thing, and then they did that thing. And then the th
23.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
Related similar thing when I sent my dog's recent bloodwork to an LLM, including dates, tests, and values. The model suggested that an advancement in her kidney values (all still within normal range) were likely evidence of chronic kid
24.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
I'm not sure I get your analogy here. If you're suggesting that it's not "moving the goalposts" because it's pointing out that driving in Rome or Mumbai is different than driving in North America, then that is
25.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
This feels a lot like "moving the goalposts." First, it was complete science fiction to have technology in the car. Then, it was in the car, but it could only do navigation and music, it can't operate the car the way humans c
26.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
I find this way of looking at LLMs to be odd. Surely we all are aware that AI has always been probabilistic in nature. Very few people seem to go around talking about how their binary classifier is always hallucinating, but just sometimes h
27.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
> "Hallucination" implies that the LLM holds some relationship to truth. Output from an LLM is not a hallucination, it's bullshit[0]. I understand your perspective, but the intention was to use a term we've all heard
28.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
As for correctness, they mentioned the LLM citing links that the person can verify. So there is some protection at that level. But, also, the threshold of things we manage ourselves versus when we look to others is constantly moving as tech
29.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
This is the real value of AI that, I think, we're just starting to get into. It's less about automating workflows that are inherently unstructured (I think that we're likely to continue wanting humans for this for some time).
30.
by colinmorelli 1y ago
FYI: The actual study may not quite say what this article is suggesting. Unless I'm missing something, the study seems to focus on employee use of chat-based assistants, not on company-wide use of AI workflow solutions. The answers com

More ›