buckRogers

quote:

---

hardly post here. Came to share what I’ve heard. Sorry you’re upset.

---

To the extent someone told you that, they were clearly patronizing you and told you the most ridiculous thing they could think of. Perhaps they were wondering whether this shmoe just takes this right to the Rant. Then they check and see one “Busch” posting this apparent insider info. Classic info-ruse.

quote:

---

AI already solved a very old math equation last week that was considered impossible.

---

I think someone else in the thread may have caught this, but I believe they just copied someone’s academic work on the subject. And to be clear neither the academic work nor OpenAI’s appropriation of their work has been shown to involve use of AI in the first place.

Speaks to a larger problem with all the doomer theories on AI. People just throw out these fantastic achievements left and right but the reality is if it isn’t something mundane that is saving people some narrow amount of time (i.e. doc organization & summaries, text pre-fill, atrocious novels and movies), you’ll find that there’s an astounding chance that it is completely made up. And to be clear I would unequivocally place Anthropic’s cure to cancer in the “completely made up” category - not in the “they’re working on it but they’re not actually that close” sense, but more so in the “they’re not actually even working on that” sense.

Edit - this is besides the point but the academic solution wasn’t even of the nature presented by OpenAI. It was a solution to the navier-stokes problem. It’s beyond my IQ, but as I understand, it’s a complicated fluid dynamics proposition that doesn’t have a “solution” in the 1+1=2 fashion that we typically think of. It’s more of a challenge to make any way to predict anything about this complex system. The “solution” found by the academics, while a huge achievement, was a very narrow proofing that had to assume very narrow conditions under this fluid system in order to permit a “solution” that was able to make a workable input -> output theory on system behavior.

I digress. My understanding of this sort of thing is limited to the explanations of “non linear systems” and “chaos theory” used in the Jurassic Park novels.

Not sure what the jails are like but I believe Singapore has a very expansive view on which crimes warrant life in prison / death penalty.

quote:

---

makes energy cheap

---

Come again?

Also everything in OP’s post is just Altman-ese for “we are once again nearly out of money.”

Seems reasonable. Average age of indianas starters would have been like 4 years older than LSU’s.

quote:

---

Tom Izzo has built a lot more equity in college basketball than Will Wade.

---

This summarizes the hate for wade since day 1. It was fine for Coach K, Rick Pitino, et.al. to pay players, but it wasn’t okay for Wade to do so. Why, because “equity”? Get outta here. it was dumb when that wine-drunk bastard dick vitale went on his campaign, and it’s MUCH dumber now in the NIL era.

quote:

---

How does that make you feel?

---

It makes me feel like you need something better to do with your day sir.

The amount of statistical framing and reframing I’m seeing on this topic reminds me of people zooming in and out of world temperature graphs when arguing about global warming lmao.

quote:

---

The average age of Indiana's starters (not roster, starters) was 22.4. That means they are mostly normal college seniors/RS seniors.

---

Hang on. I mean that average value also suggests that there’s a handful of players who are like 24 years old lmao. Unless the starters are all hovering around 22-23 years in age, which is also striking me as a very old roster. This also needs to be considered in light of today’s roster turnover at 99% of programs. This isn’t 2005.

Idk I feel like it’s a valid point that they had a very, very senior roster. And theres a lot of nuance to defining an “old” roster, like how long they’ve been playing together, relevancy of the ages for bench players who rotate in frequently as opposed to the irrelevancy of the ones who don’t, etc.

It’s a very Reddit, “I just started watching football 3 months ago because Go Hoosiers and screw Bama lol,” thing to just pull a random stat and say “see the roster wasn’t that old.” Most unbiased voices in the sport all agree it’s a very old roster, but who cares. Again, it’s dumb Reddit-tier fans who need to have their cake, and eat it too, and show it to all their friends and family without anyone saying a word against it.

To the extent one imports a slew of 25-year olds and a viable one-year quarterback from California, I would think that one. Same probably goes for any conference though.

The issue with this field is the players themselves. Look up Archer, Uber Elevate, etc. It’s a bunch of tech bros who are great at raising money, terrible at bringing an actual product to market. This has been around for years and none of these companies have an actual working prototype that is anywhere close to passing FAA regulations. I guess it’s a pretty huge leap in technology so maybe one shouldn’t be so cynical, but it’s tough not to be when all the people behind it are just venture-capital grifters.