I would hope this results in criminal charges and jail time. Honestly, even if it's by negligence and not deliberate. Fines are not enough to abate this kind of despicable behavior.
I would go further and say this is ideal for capital punishment.
Not because I think capital punishment deters such reprehensible behavior, but because it's ridiculous tax payers shelter and feed animals willing to do such horrible things. Those tax dollars are better spent on virtually anything else.
I think that has happened, a few times, in China. They can get pretty harsh, when it comes to punishments. Corruption (at least, the ones that get caught, or embarrass the Party) is also sometimes met with capital punishment.
Corruption is a huge problem, worldwide. We have plenty of it, in the US, but other nations almost have it in their constitution. Everyone just expects a little silver to cross their palms.
I had family that was very big on fighting corruption.
Two executives were executed in the followup to the Chinese scandal when baby formula was found to be intentionally adulterated with melamine. (A few hundred babies were hospitalized; six died.)
It seems safe to say that there is a deterrent effect.
The only possible reason for barriers to entry is regulation? There are many industries where startup costs are high for reasons intrinsic to the business and margins are relatively low so you are unlikely to get investment from outside sources. Grocery stores for example. You are trying to apply a toy model from econ 101 to explain the behavior of complex real world markets, and when the model doesn't fit you invent bogeymen to blame. This is more like religious fundamentalism than any kind of science.
Grocery stores are already operating at rock bottom – in most markets, at least.
It is not that difficult to try opening your own grocery store. In fact, many restaurants did exactly that during COVID-19 shutdowns. Realistically, succeeding is going to be nigh impossible, though, as there is not much you can compete on. You are not going to be able to sell the product for less.
It is not meaningfully bound by a regulatory barrier, but it is limited by there being no further room for competitiveness, as also spoken to in the previous comment.
I find it very funny that a forum of people who ostensibly work in the highest profit margin businesses in the world, enjoying the highest industry wide compensation to quality of life at work ratios, claim that the lowest profit margin businesses in the world with some of the lowest compensation to quality of ratio work has enough pricing power to allow them to reap undue windfalls of profit.
When it's entirely enabled by your vein of work, it is absolutely fair game to call out your fellow practitioners. Further, not everyone here is FAANG. Nor does everyone here necessarily get the majority of motivation on what they work on from the paycheck rather than the effects of the work done.
As the ostensible computer scientists in the room. Sitting back and not pointing out that there exist "monopoly pricing indirection mechanisms" implemented as businesses is really failing to do one's moral and ethical responsibility.
> As the ostensible computer scientists in the room. Sitting back and not pointing out that there exist "monopoly pricing indirection mechanisms" implemented as businesses is really failing to do one's moral and ethical responsibility.
And yet the empirical evidence is not there due to nonexistent profit margins. Show me the sustained increase in profit margins if you are going to claim malfeasance. And I am not claiming there is not malfeasance, I just don’t want to see innocent parties (those with low single digit profit margins) get accused of it for no reason.
Is it possible businesses are colluding resulting in increased profit margins? Obviously.
But we have publicly listed companies with public financials showing non material increases, or even decreases, in profit margin. Which means those businesses are just increasing prices to cover their own increasing cost of goods sold.
Thank you. Much too often the replies in threads on prices are just a conspiracyfest of people alleging things that make no economic sense without providing any kind of evidence.
Because it is of course completely obvious that collusion among very large, very complex competing entities is a very easy proposition, you just need a magic algorithm to do it! /s
Every post that is even remotely critical of ChatGPT has someone posting this exact sentiment like clockwork. It's probably just mindless fanboys, but I'm genuinely starting to wonder if it's some kind of astroturfed ad campaign for OpenAI.
Worth pointing out that sometimes things really are impossible. If an MBA tells you something is impossible, it is probably just really hard. If a physicist tells you your idea violates conservation of energy, it is probably not worth wasting your life chasing it.
This is a really fun use of language models. I wonder if more capable models would be better or worse in this kind of application? To some extent the charm comes from the whimsical aspect of it.
Did you read the article or just the title? They mention the specific models the researchers were testing and note that increasing model size did not seem to offer much improvement on this metric. It also ends with a discussion of research into methods for improving performance on queries involving negation.
I read the article. The main point of the article, which is in the title, is directed at LLMs in general. They drew the wrong conclusion and made the title and main point too general.
It actually would have seemed like a valid conclusion (although still too general) if the article came out some months ago. But GPT-4 and the very latest model versions from other companies show they were over-generalizing.
Also the model size isn't necessarily the determining factor.
Even if we accept their motivations at face value (which is naive), it's a totally incoherent morality. There are infinitely many future states with trillions of of lives. Which one is the one we attach moral value to? If it's all of them, then every single decision you make is equivalent to killing infinitely many future people. If it's one particular future state how do we decide which one? (I am not, of course, saying that you shouldn't value making the future better, just that applying this specific kind of utilitarian calculus to future humans is childish nonsense.)
It gets reposted because it confirms the biases of right-wing posters and is an easy way for them to farm positive engagement and feel like they have some special insight into current events.
