The second case mentioned in the article is interesting because no other case about employee choice had gone to merits before.

Thus it might be the first example of AI winning a case that sets some kind of precedent.

At the very least it shows that AI can put together coherent legal arguments even when there are no close precedents or case law it can refer to. This was something a lot of lawyers didn't believe would be possible for AI to do.

> He said he used ChatGPT to "grill" him to prepare for cross-examination at the tribunal hearing, but admitted, "things did not go the way I was expecting."

I would put the success more on the person, than the AI, for that particular case.

In some fields, all of those statements are true already.

In a large number of few fields, all of those statements will be true in the near future (10 years maximum).

There's no reason that the Humboldtian model should be the right structure for the next century's universities, just as it wasn't the right structure for the 18th century's universities.

Wow, I can't wait to live in a world where nobody knows how anything works, some people are arbitrarily rich and some arbitrarily poor with no ability to change their standing in life, and, worst of all, people celebrate these developments, even if they may be in the poor cohort, as progress.

In other words, prepare to get medieval.

I got banned for violating terms of use apparently, but I'm mystified as to what I rule I broke, and appealing just vanishes into the ether.

Two accounts of mine were banned for some reason and my sub was refunded. Literally from just inane conversations. Conversations also disappear and break randomly, but this happens on ChatGPT too sometimes

Has anyone else got examples of reasoning traces where it uses a word in a way that no human being would?

I just proved that constraint solving problems can be encoded as p-adic linear regression problems[+], and that therefore we can use machine learning optimisation techniques to get exact answers.

So of course no journal or conference is in the least bit interested, and I'm now reformatting it for another obscure low-tier journal that no-one will ever read.

Otherwise:

- automating the translation of a Byzantine Greek work that has never been translated into English before. https://stephanos.symmachus.org

- also preparing evidence for a case against the university I sometimes work for.

[+] Linear regression, but instead of minimising the Euclidean distance, minimise the p-adic distance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_valuation

Stephanos of Byzantium wrote what we would call an encyclopedia of people and places. Most of it has been lost, but shortened versions still exist. I've set up a bot to scan a version of what we have, translate it, extract out the proper nouns and try to figure out what was lost. https://stephanos.symmachus.org/ I'm also linking it to the translation of Pausanias https://pausanias.symmachus.org that another bot is doing.

Also, trying to finish a PhD on machine learning when you want to minimise a p-adic loss.

I create a separate Linux user (which doesn't have sudo rights) for each project. I have to log each user in to Claude code or codex, but then I can use ordinary Unix permissions to keep the bots under control and isolated.

> The volume of cargo carried by sailing vessels in the old days was orders of magnitude lower.

Surprisingly, no, it wasn't. I'll slightly fudge the numbers and talk in terms of proportion of world trade that was carried by ocean-going vessels (because if you double the population then it's reasonable to talk about doubling the number of ships).

The world economy was very globalised in 1913. That level of globalisation in trade wasn't matched again until the 1990s.

We're only a little more global now than we were in the age of sail.

The British navy and merchant fleet was a wonder of its era.

Writing a course for a customer on how to use Claude Code well, especially around brownfield development (working on existing code bases, not so much around vibe-coding something new).

> If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.

More recently though, it kind of seems like if the playing field isn't tipped strongly towards the US, then the US government will step in to tip it their way.

Government subsidies effectively provide protection for a local market and capital.

America has some of the lowest cost of capital and most effective financial markets in human history.

If the Chinese markets are blocked that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is inaccessible.

Another aspect of government subsidies is that they mask incompetence.

Not sure why this is downvoted. The Chinese government has been quite transparent in terms of globally dominating several industries including EV through heavy government support.

It would make no sense to destroy your own industry because it can’t compete with a heavily subsidized foreign industry.

If it is such a successful strategy, why doesn't everybody do it?

It's often not a successful strategy.

If your product sells like made at a subsidized price, but not at the unsubsidized price, it's not a real business.

Subsidise industries?

Everyone does.

China funds it upfront, while the US does it after the spending and calls it a bail-out, or a "government contract"