A few weeks ago saw an Instagram reel, the creator said, very confidently, that doing a SIP every month won’t build wealth. The smart way, is to invest only when the Nifty PE ratio is below its historical average and stop when it’s above.
It sounds smart. Buy when it’s cheap, stop when it’s expensive.
I wanted to verify this with historical data with the help of claude code.
Be like Panda. No ideology, no loyalty, no permanent enemies. Today a revolutionary, tomorrow a leftist, by evening a neutral analyst.
His only principle in life? Wherever the engagement flows, there goes Panda. Praise one person in the morning, roast them by lunch, and defend them by dinner.
No consistency, no controversy to avoid, no conscience to consult. Just vibes, viral tweets, and enough engagement to keep the biryani coming.
Be like Panda. Don’t stand for anything. Just stand where the algorithm pays. 😂
@itisprashanth
@bengawalk Yea only 1/3 of the road is available and sadly even pedestrians need to use that as pavements are private gardens.
Only advantage is lack of noise typical in rest of blore. Even garbage vehicles don't play that noise.
If you've ever worked at Google you'd see first hand just how much raw cognitive math-ish processing speed and working memory can decline for nationally ranked test takers and former top uni grads in their 30s and 40s, from decades of disuse and unambitious office work.
If you try to eat less than ~2,500 kcal/d, you're *supposed to be* hungry.
Man just wasn't built to live off <2,500 kcal/d.
From an evolutionary standpoint, here's how it's supposed to work...
Caloric intake falls, paleolithic man sitting around fire gets hungry.
This hunger motivates him to *move*...
Sometimes over very long distances in search of food.
Trying to ignore or suppress this signal (or the resultant outcome -> extended movement) is suppressing the natural biological balance of your body.
Hunger -> Move -> Find food.
This is the natural satiety cycle.
This is to my point about compression being inevitable as human knowledge is too small for what we are building. As well, humans are too redundant in their wants needs and questions.
AI-generated content will clearly contain propagation errors just like human history of knowledge does. Only LLMs will iterate those propagation errors infinitely faster with less ability to self- correct, for want of understanding.
This gets to Ballard’s test. LLMs cannot attain understanding (AGI) as understanding cannot exist unless reason first exists without language. A likely impossibility for a language model.
Research on this is already focused on getting around this in some way. Though many also have not yet conceded the point.
I said "auto-regressive LLMs, in and of themselves, will not lead human-level AI"
That statement is still totally true.
First, the reasoning abilities of current AI systems are based non-auto-regressive search (which is what I have always advocated for). But AFAICT, they do it in token space, which is limited and inefficient. I have claimed that human-like reasoning must be a search in continuous representation space. It looks like the industry is moving towards that.
Second, the self-improvement methods, as currently practiced, only work for domains where the quality of outputs can be scored without human intervention, such as mathematics, code, and scenarios that can be simulated accurately. Not anything else. Humans and animals learn new skills way more efficiently than current RL methods.
Third, the multimodal capabilities of current AI assistants generally use separately-trained encoders (that are not LLMs). This is also what I've been advocating. Except that I think the best way to do this is with JEPA trained with self-supervised learning. The research community is clearly moving towards that (3000 papers on JEPA in just 4 years).
Fourth, if LLMs were a path to human-level AI, we would have domestic robots and Level-4 or Level-5 self-driving cars for consumers by now. And we don't. We certainly don't have cars that can learn to drive in 20 hours or practice like any teenager. We're still missing something pretty huge to claim human-level intelligence (let alone superhuman).
Sure, we now have computer systems that are impressive, very useful, and whose performance is superhuman in an increasing number of domains (coding being one of them).
But that's true of the entire history of progress in computer technology.
Lastly, there is a basic confusion about what intelligence actually is.
It is not the mere accumulation and regurgitation of existing declarative knowledge (which is essentially what LLMs do).
As Jean Piaget famously said, "intelligence is not what you know, it is what you do when you don't know."
It is your ability to solve new problem without any prior training, to act in previously-unknown scenarios, and to adapt very quickly to new situations with minimal training.
We're still far from that.
One more fascinating detail shared by Kavignar Vaali, this time about how Maestro used a particular raga, rarely used in movies, for the composition of “Chinna Kannan Azhaikkiraan...” ❤️
#Ilaiyaraaja#Vaali