I've only skimmed the link (and its sub-links), but the basic idea is this:

If you've trained a model to predict the next move in an Othello game, given the board state as an input, you can not necessarily conclude that the model also has the ability to perform similar tasks, like "Determine whether a given move is legal" or "Determine what the board state will be after executing a move". Those abilities might help a model predict the next move but are not required.

However:

> Context: A recent paper trained a model to play legal moves in Othello by predicting the next move, and found that it had spontaneously learned to compute the full board state - an emergent world representation.

In the process of optimizing the model's ability to predict moves, the model did also develop the ability to compute the next board state, given the initial state previous moves and predicted move (Thank you /u/ditchfieldcaleb).

The author's contribution:

> I find that actually, there's a linear representation of the board state! > This is evidence for the linear representation hypothesis: that models, in general, compute features and represent them linearly, as directions in space! (If they don't, mechanistic interpretability would be way harder)

Which is to say that the model's internal prediction of the next board state is fairly interpretable by humans: There's some square-ish set of activations in the model that correspond to the square-ish Othello board. That's another property of the model that is a reasonable outcome but isn't a foregone conclusion.

The idea is that at Google, Meta, Microsoft scale, the companies and their patent portfolios are so sprawling in what they do and cover that it is improbable that there aren't multiple infringements in both sides. It is in fact impossible to determine how much infringement your company is committing because it is unfeasible to even enumerate everything your company is doing, much less ensure that there is no intersection with a given patent portfolio. So it's a fair assumption that multiple infringements exist in both directions.

The large tech companies largely build their patent portfolios for defensive purposes. Two companies with big portfolios are mutually assured destruction should they start attempting to enforce them against one another.

If you take the light rail, someone is paying for your ride. If you're not paying for it, someone else is paying for it. You're taking money out of the pocket of people who bought their ticket.

You can buy tickets in advance, or on your phone. The paper tickets are very thin and you can keep one in your wallet if you need it, and replace it on your way out. So if you're on the train without a ticket, that's a preventable mistake. You can also rectify it by buying a ticket once you're on the train.

The absence of fare enforcement is a good thing if you don't abuse it. The light rail would cost more and be less convenient with more enforcement.

Posts alerting to fare enforcement help people who don't pay take money from people who do pay. And they send the message that it's okay to not pay.

If you're taking the light rail, presumably it's helping you. If it's not worth $2.25 to you, you're not missing much if you don't take it. If it is worth something to you, but people evade the fare, maybe it will cost more than $2.25, or run less frequently, or cease to function entirely.

There's nobody who can say what "fair" is. Either the tickets pay for the light rail, or there's no light rail. Nobody is forcing you to take it and nobody is getting rich from it.

The fare enforcement alerts should be banned just like a "unlocked house, free to rob" post should be.

Hurry up, my water isn't going to asparagus itself.

There's very likely a SAAS product that does this this the way you want off the shelf. I'd look for that before considering implementing anything yourself.

Whether or not the parents can, many won't. And your children will live their lives surrounded by their children, and it may greatly benefit your children for them to be surrounded by at least partially educated people.

Part of the value in paying for public education is getting to live in a society where the kids who didn't get educated at home at least got educated in school.

I've had success both buying and selling on Facebook Marketplace.

They all got closed simultaneously. Hasn't been gradual device failure.

I failed to get a position but I was also totally clueless (and useless) at the time (a long time ago, 2006-2007). Last year I spoke with a fairly talented undergrad who got a research assistant position at Columbia as a freshman. So, consider it case by case basis. If you have or develop the skills to be useful now you'll be better positioned when you matriculate. And it's all the more reason to try to line one up before you accept an offer.

For research it shouldn't matter.

Columbia and NYU both have pretty good faculty. NYU probably has the edge there. Rather than pick a school and hope it works out, you might reach out to specific faculty whose work interests you and see if they're expecting to take on undergrad assistants.

Columbia GS students on average have a different experience than other undergrads. It's worth learning about the experiences GS students have had and whether that affects your decision.