@DavidSacks@signal2noisebtc It was red teamed. Safety has always been probabilistic. The clock is ticking on competing models from adversaries. Patch it and move on.
@profplum99 There is an element of choosing the right tool for the job. But, it's not like there is a shortage of nontrivial tasks to put Fable to work on.
Conviction works because it's uncomfortable to hold into a steep drawdown. Trimming losses also works, but when the selling accelerates, shorts pile in and sentiment takes a dive, the math favors either stepping aside or being long. Sizing is the only way I know to manage uncomfortable positions that seem illogical or even foolish.
@adamtaggart It depends. Give it specific context and ask pointed questions, and it can be a helpful tool. But, ask a broad question with poor guidance and you're just asking for trouble.
@biancoresearch 'Cause' is whatever the president wants it to mean and whatever the court decides that it means. A game of power and influence dressed up like the search for truth.
@adamtaggart It's only goading if you think that China knows something that the US doesn't, namely that US AI investment won't generate the promised payoff. Experts disagree. Neither side knows the answer well enough to use it to their advantage.
Agreed with a caveat. Strong, AI-fueled earnings reflect ongoing circular dealing amongst the largest constituents. This has been a huge tailwind for earnings as companies get rich on paper marking up their investments in each other. The net result is reduced earnings quality and declining FCF. These are red flags in my book.
@CharlesFLehman@pmarca Good effort but the paper doesn't convincingly address issues with multicollinearity. The basic problem is that AI exposure and WFH are not independent.