If it was truely an arm's race to AGI they would've stopped relying on the data/param scaling law BS ages ago.

The way I see it the benefit of benchmark isn't to take Simon's results at face value. It's a template for your own benchmarks that are easy to visually evaluate.

> put him in a classroom setting, for something he doesn't really care about, and he just won't do the work.

Coming from a family of people assumed to be like this, and having friends in similar situations. Rarely are they actually disinterested in the subject, but are disinterested in how it was taught and self conscious of their perceived understanding of the subject. It's easier to say you don't care when it comes up.

> nearly everyone thinks that they know the right way to teach, and most people don't.

It's typical for people to accumulate many examples of how "not to teach", and it's natural to extrapolate those experiences into ideas of "how to teach". To your point though, most people don't know how to do things they aren't practiced in, and some don't even know how to do things they are practiced in.

> They would grasp the subjects quickly when I was speaking, they would ask good questions during class [...] but they didn't want to be there.

> [...] isn't interested in learning.

I highly doubt these students weren't interested in learning. By your own account they were engaged during class.

No teaching style is going to be able to fit to all students equally.

I was taught (when teaching for the military, actually) that leadership/teaching/etc. often talk about toolboxes but neglect a VERY important one.

You shouldn't just have a toolbox of things you've picked up from your best examples, that you've been taught, etc. It's possibly more important to have another toolbox of broken tools from all the terrible bosses, reactions to situations you've witnessed, etc.

This way when you go to do something and it's not in your toolbox, you can pull out that box of broken/bad tools and see if it's there. Otherwise we perpetuate bad leadership (and teaching IS leadership) through intentional ignorance (forgetting the lessons those bad situations gave us).

If you look at it broadly nearly all software is subsidized by open source, so it's a smart choice to send some subsidies back to open source.

> Additionally, I'm not fully convinced that consciousness isn't built out of words

Doesn't that assume all non human animals are not conscious? What about humans who have not learned words, or humans without internal dialog?

Both metrics are valuable.

If one uses AI minimally and is able to out perform peers who are maxing out AI spend, one might want to use that in salary negotiations.

If your company provides a phone or computer, you should never use it for anything other than work. Not because of any moral obligation, but because it's a big security risk for you.

Sometimes using a company device is even a risk for the company... They shoot themselves in the foot by allowing IT to silently remote takeover/view a device, or install key loggers.

I think now more than ever humans need RSS, so we can curate what enters our information feed as the social media experiment continues to degenerate.

I love Rust, but porting others software to Rust (or any language) is a mixed bag. I'm a strong believer that good software requires deep domain knowledge to build and maintain. Porting code you don't understand by hand already risks still not understanding it afterwards, doing it in an automated fashion all but guarantees it.

All that to say I think these automated ports are interesting experiments. However if you want to build something people can trust, the people need to be able to trust that you fully understand what is built, and why it's built the way it is.