make people pay and this problem is solved. it blows my mind that there is an obvious solution here that we simply refuse to touch because... principle?

This might be the your missing puzzle piece:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_to_End_Pay_Toilets_i...

Abandoning paid public bathrooms was a mistake. Better to pay a dollar and have a clean bathroom than to have 10x fewer public bathrooms but free.

This feels... excessive. If you wanna regulate AI then regulate AI. This is what Congress is for no? Just seems like a weird way to go about this.

but wrt. the points of the law suite it is already regulated, that is why there is a law suite

think about it, it would be absurd if you had to redefine deceptive, misleading or negligent business practices for every single kind of product anew.

So instead they define it once, in a generic way. But companies tend to try to knowingly stretch and often outright breach this generic definitions in hope to lawyer bs themself out of it. And sadly they do too often succeed to at least avoid keeping to the law during the initial marked capture :(. This is a huge problem, but not suing and nit picking regulating everything again and again and again for each new kind of product would make this problem _way_ worse.

This doesn't mean that regulations which "clarify" what this means for a specific field/product would not be desirable. They are a very desired improvement IMHO. But not because companies would then keep to the law, they make more money by ignoring it, but to cut down cost/time when suing for a breach ...

Or to put it differently, most countries do require companies to act non-negligent _as most fundamental baseline_ (through many different laws/regulations), if you very clearly do act negligent or even malicious/deceptive then you can't complain if they sue.

Ideally, yes. Currently Congress is just a rubber stamp for the president who has been suitably bribed into being an AI booster

Regulation is forward looking.

How do you hold people accountable for reckless behavior in the past?

But if the closed-source models can do this without the additional effort, that's a significant gap, no?

See that's the thing, they can't. Every model needs hand holding and guidance.

some require less hand-holding than others though

No one is trying to argue that OS models are better than Opus 4.7. It's simply that they're good enough and cheaper.

The point is that the price gap is so much larger than the capability gap, that even with the extra compute needed to make up for the lack of capability, you can still come out ahead in terms of amortized $/work done.

Is it really when they are hundreds of times more expensive?

That is the 3-6 month sota-open gap people talk about, a time-window that continues to move as new models are released on both sides.

Do you know what economic trade offs are?

Both implicit and explicit..?

At least Quebec actually does have a distinct nation/culture/ethnicity/language.

Yeah I'm really not sure why everyone is shitting on it so hard, I mean it is a cool interactive experience. I understand that present-day Opera has some serious problems, sold to a Chinese company, people feel like it's a separate thing from old Opera, that it's lost its soul, all very fair. But we should be able to evaluate this experience as a separate thing, and it's pretty slick!

I am also surprised it's so low (the number who haven't read). I would have expected 3 in 5 or even 4 in 5 americans to have not read a single book in 2025. I wonder if these stats include "tried to finish a book (and failed)" rather than actual completion stats.

Maybe it's 1 readers, 2 honest people, and 2 people who preferred to lie than confess they didn't read a single book.

Am I missing something? If the algorithm is interrupted, the list will not be sorted. How exactly does it fit the criteria of an anytime algo?

An anytime algorithm monotonically improves some evaluation metric. For a sort, the evaluation metric is usually the number of inversions in the list. At completion, there will be zero inversions. If at time 0 there are N inversions, then at time 0 < t < completion time there will be ≤ N inversions; that is, the list is "more sorted" than it was before. As the various examples about games and animation elsewhere in the comments show, this can be interpreted as "somewhat smoothly moving towards sorted over time," which is an (occasionally) ((rarely)) useful property.

Okay, but it gives you a mostly good answer! Unlike many other sorts where if you interrupt it before the last step, you get total nonsense.

It's basically asymptotically approacting the correct (sorted) list instead of shuffling the list in weird ways until it's all magically correct in the end.

> Unlike many other sorts where if you interrupt it before the last step, you get total nonsense.

which ones you have in mind? and doesn't "nonsense" depend on scoring criteria?

selection sort would give you sorted beginning, cocktail shaker would have sorted both ends

quick sort would give vast ranges separation ("small values on one side, big on the other"), and block-merge algorithms create sorted subarrays

in my view those qualities are much more useful for partial state than "number of pairs of elements out of order" metric which smells of CS-complexity talk

Wrong post.

Can you explain how you patched the iOS IG app? Seems massively useful if it's not too much of a pain. Please share!