In this case it's a little bit worse; the "nate" app had a literally "0% automation rate," despite representations to investors of an "AI" automation rate of "93-97%" powered by "LSTMs, NLP, and RL." No ML model ever existed! [1]
See:
> As SANIGER knew, at the time nate was claiming to use AI to automate online purchases, the app’s actual automation rate was effectively 0%. SANIGER concealed that reality from investors and most nate employees: he told employees to keep nate’s automation rate secret; he restricted access to nate’s “automation rate dashboard,” which displayed automation metrics; and he provided false explanations for his secrecy, such as the automation data was a “trade secret.”
> SANIGER claimed that nate's "deep learning models" were "custom built" and use a "mix of long short-term memory, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning."
> When, on the eve of making an investment, an employee of Investment Firm-1 asked SANIGER about nate's automation rate, that is, the percentage of transactions successfully completed with nate's AI technology, SANIGER claimed that internal testing showed that "success ranges from 93% to 97%."
I am in the minority here. These tariffs are fairly reasonable. Here's why:
(1) The state has a compelling interest in regulating market risk tolerance. When the FED sets the risk-free interest rate, it controls the price of risk, and thereby the risk of the entire market. It is often advisable to temper the risk-eager market for long-term stability.
(2) Likewise, when the POTUS enacts tariffs, it is similarly setting the market's risk tolerance--namely against the risks concomitant of economic dependency on foreign nations.
(3) This will inoculate the economy against external supply chain shocks (at the extreme: war) by reducing our liability. It's not just consumers who are price-sensitive; given goods within a class will not be affected equally, natural price advantages will emerge, shifting demand and consumption as all levels of economy begin to price-in these tariffs.
The "economic consensus" against these tariffs just isn't real? It's exceedingly likely that the US likely will be better off because of them :)
> This will inoculate the economy against external supply chain shocks
How so? There's hardly enough unemployment and there's also no incentive towards increasing the number of immigrant workers.
Either suppliers eat the cost of the tariffs as the US administration says, or they don't and then everything becomes more expensive, but either way you have the exact same supply chain.
(1) Much like a carbon tax, when the economy becomes accountable for an externality (risk in this case, rather than carbon) it is priced in at every level, ending with consumers, whose demand is price-sensitive. Not all consumer goods of the same class will be impacted equally, creating a natural price advantage.
(2) Once the economy adjusts to these new risk-adjusted prices, POTUS can always offer clemency for specific goods and industries to respond to global supply shocks, providing a large buffer for the now-adjusted American consumer.
(3) Narrowly: it is exceedingly unlikely we won't see production onshoring in any capacity like you suggest. Economic analysis of the first-term Trump tariffs, for example, did indeed find production onshoring.
Sure there will be some onshoring, but does it make more sense to onshore or pay given: 1) the instability of Trump's decisions, see Ukraine or Canada 2) you would have less economy of scale because you wouldn't sell any of your super expensive goods outside the USA 3) if the machines you need aren't produced in America they'd have tariffs too 4) the next president could make the tariffs more favorable. You also haven't touched unemployment (or lack thereof) yet.
(And by the way, if tariffs stay, brace for deflation due to waiting until after the election in 2028).
- Tariffs are not a lever, they distort risk tolerance.
- Tariffs are crude, they are like a huge hammer hitting everyone, including allies
- Tariffs cause loss of confidence and loss of credit
To (2):
- Blanket tariffs target allies; they're isolating us and we're creating blocks polarized to us and weaning themselves off our economic output.
- Tariffs only reduce dependency if there is internal capacity, of which there is none. We'll best case shift our dependency via third-party countries
- We're concentrating our risk on fewer countries where tariffs are lower
To (3):
- We're reducing our efficiency and increasing prices, job losses are coming, productivity will stagnate. We're reducing our agility and our headroom
- Historically, autarky has lead to stagnation.
The economic consensus against these tariffs is real. It's exceedingly likely the US will destroy its economy, alienate itself and isolate itself because of them :)
Long-term trade deficits are intrinsically bad. The tariffs directly address this by being exactly weighed by said deficit. See the OTR report [1]:
> To conceptualize reciprocal tariffs, the tariff rates that would drive bilateral trade deficits to zero were computed. While models of international trade generally assume that trade will balance itself over time, the United States has run persistent current account deficits for five decades, indicating that the core premise of most trade models is incorrect.
> The failure of trade deficits to balance has many causes, with tariff and non-tariff economic fundamentals as major contributors. Regulatory barriers to American products, environmental reviews, differences in consumption tax rates, compliance hurdles and costs, currency manipulation and undervaluation all serve to deter American goods and keep trade balances distorted. As a result, U.S. consumer demand has been siphoned out of the U.S. economy into the global economy, leading to the closure of more than 90,000 American factories since 1997, and a decline in our manufacturing workforce of more than 6.6 million jobs, more than a third from its peak.
> While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero. If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.
> Tariffs are not a lever, they distort risk tolerance.
The "distortion" / divergence from market trends is exactly the point. This is no different from the FED setting the risk-free interest rate, or a carbon tax being levied. The government is holding actors accountable for an externality (trade deficit).
> Tariffs are crude, they are like a huge hammer hitting everyone, including allies
The intrinsically bad part is the trade imbalance, not adversarial nation status; these tariffs are structured such that if adhered to, ceteris paribus, we will have zero trade imbalance. See the OTR report. These tariffs are anything but crude, rather calculated and surgical. Countries with little deficit will be changed little tariff; those with large deficit a proportional, calculated tariff.
> Tariffs cause loss of confidence and loss of credit
This has yet to be shown in the long term.
> Blanket tariffs target allies; they're isolating us and we're creating blocks polarized to us and weaning themselves off our economic output.
Again, these are not "blanket tariffs." They are strategic, surgical and calculated, based directly on the particular trade deficit--especially indicated for allies who have gone unchecked for far too long. It's unclear if adversarial BLOCs have much to do with tariffs, and the US's economic exports (especially key exports like oil and LNG) have only increased amidst recently increasing strategic import controls.
> Tariffs only reduce dependency if there is internal capacity, of which there is none.
You're putting the cart before the horse. We need demand before we see an increase in production.
> We'll best case shift our dependency via third-party countries
> We're concentrating our risk on fewer countries where tariffs are lower
Reciprocal tariffs are calculated and recalculated based on current trade deficit--this won't happen. Intrinsically, the "bucketing" of trade along geopolitical borders (we sum all exports and imports along national lines), actually incentives nation-heterogeneity, not nation-homogeneity, in imports, which is directly in line with national security interest.
> We're reducing our efficiency and increasing prices, job losses are coming, productivity will stagnate. We're reducing our agility and our headroom
Prices will increase, naturally. That's the entire point. See the OTR report. Jobs likely won't decrease, though, given the cost of labor will be relatively cheaper than the cost of goods, incentivizing hiring. Additionally, the FED is likely to lower interest rates, which will put further demand on the labor market. :>
We certainly have a lot more negotiating power and agility and headroom now that we can strategically peel away tariffs to absorb supply shocks, once the economy adjusts to the new status quo.
> Historically, autarky has lead to stagnation.
When has the US ever been in autarky?
Ultimately, like the FED setting the risk-free interest rates, the POTUS is tempering the market's risk-taking behavior by internalizing the externality of trade deficit for economic agents.
> The intrinsically bad part is the trade imbalance,
The basis of your comment appears to be recieved wisdom from an uncredited source, what many regard as an opinion of dubious standing.
eg:
Back on the goods side, when the US economy is robust and people have disposable income, imports naturally increase. Ultimately, while trade deficits indicate economic dynamics, they are not inherently negative nor do they signify economic weakness.
Rather, they often reflect a nation’s economic structure and consumer preference for diverse global products. After all, Australia has run trade deficits for decades, including with the US, and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
The fundamental precept here is that foreign investment of goods is more preferable to domestic investment of goods [1], so running a negative trade balance is dispreferable.
Trump is a textbook Mercantilist (positive trade balance inherently good [2]). Rather than magazine articles, see the Palgrave (the definitive encyclopedic reference for Econ) entry [1] and the Wikipedia page [2] for the arguments and history.
I always find reading the highest quality material leads to the highest quality thinking—there’s certainly a reason why modern LLM training mixtures might weight wikipedia tokens 5x and webtext 0.5x. :>
There are many sources .. I linked to an opinion from two national economic advisors with careers in trade and economics.
You haven't countered their opinon or backed up your opinion, in fact you've strengthen my position that your axiomatic foundation is just another opinion of some.
See:
* When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
* Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work.
* Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Be charitable. I provided encyclopedic reference out of a mutual discovery interest. Magazine articles[/opeds] may—in your words—present “opinions of some,” whereas reference-grade material provides a broad and citable foundation—ostensibly what you are looking for (“your axiomatic foundation is just another opinion of some”).
> You haven't [..] backed up your opinion
In the spirit of “respond to the strongest plausible interpretation” and good faith, I think you may have missed the argument I was making above. :>
I am positing a reformulation/distillation of “positive trade balance preference” as “preference for foreign investment,” drawing on Palgrave, although perhaps controversially. The former is controversial, especially if seen as a-priori; the latter mundane.
About (3): This will inoculate the economy against external supply chain shocks, e.g. war.
The lead time required to set up realistic domestic production will mostly exceed this government's term. Setting up brand new supply chains doesn't happen overnight, does it?
(1) Tariffs will not affect all commodities in the same class equally, creating a natural price advantage, even at the level of consumers. While not absolute autarky, demand will continue to shift to less externally-dependent goods, which has and will continue to reduce our liability.
(2) Ideally congress would codify the tariffs to prevent that. That said, it seems the first Trump term tariffs did induce production onshoring, despite that uncertainty.
What would it take to change your mind on these tariffs?
> What would it take to change your mind on these tariffs?
If there was a positive outcome? US citizens financially better off in 4 years than they are today?
I don't think most MAGA voters would see it as a win if US was slightly less dependent on imports, but they personally are considerably worse off financially, which seems the likely outcome.
> demand will continue to shift to less externally-dependent goods, which has and will continue to reduce our liability.
The cure for this type of wishful thinking is nothing else but reality itself. Still, it’s not the premise that’s wrong here, but the argument that the US society is capable to make this type of shift. It just isn’t gonna happen.
I don't believe you or share your optimism, but I also don't want to get into an argument about it. I think it's too late to ponder if this is overall good or bad... We'll all find out either way soon enough.
If tariffs will strengthen the economy while everyone else predicts disaster, you've discovered market insight worth billions. The Dow didn't just drop 2,200 points because investors are confused, it dropped because people with serious money and expertise believe these tariffs will damage the economy. If you're right and they're wrong, there's an obvious move: bet against them and get rich.
p.s. Trump did this before in 2018-2019, giving us some hard data about the economic effects of tariffs on modern america that are guiding the economic consensus.
In the long-term. Hence "innoculation"--a prick today to prevent a serious illness tomorrow.
In the grand scheme of things, the market movement we saw in response to these tariffs is dwarfed by the sustained market downturn throughout much of 2022. Fueled by persistent inflation concerns and the FED's aggressive interest rate hikes, the S&P 500 index shed approximately 25% from its peak in January 2022 to its low in October 2022, a far more significant and prolonged decline than a single day's reaction to tariff news.
We recovered from those. We will recover from the short-term effects of these tariffs as our economy begins to price in the risk of external dependency.
Hi Jeff. This is awesome. Any plans to add word timestamps to the new speech-to-text models, though?
> Other parameters, such as timestamp_granularities, require verbose_json output and are therefore only available when using whisper-1.
Word timestamps are insanely useful for large calls with interruptions (e.g. multi-party debate/Twitter spaces), allowing transcript lines to be further split post-transcription on semantic boundaries rather than crude VAD-detected silence. Without timestamps it’s near-impossible to make intelligible two paragraphs from Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 with both interrupting each other without aggressively partitioning source audio pre-transcription—which severely degrades transcript quality, increases hallucination frequency and still doesn’t get the same quality as word timestamps. :)
Accurate word timestamps seems an overhead and required a post processing like forced alignment (speech technique that can automatically align audio files with transcripts)
Had a recent dive into a forced alignment, and discovered that most of new models dont operate on word boundaries, phoneme, etc but rather chunk audio with overlap and do word, context matching. Older HHM-style models have shorter strides (10ms vs 20ms).
Tried to search into Kaldi/Sherpa ecosystem, and found most info leads to nowhere or very small and inaccurate models.
"Study [..] found that the drug can reduce brain function"
Causal language in news on correlational (case-control) studies should be a crime.
This is a brazen misrepresentation of the results. The direction of the causal arrow (cannabis -> dumb vs dumb -> cannabis)--or if there even is a causal arrow (other factor(s) -> cannabis+dumb)--is purely editorialization and born of a severe lack of journalistic integrity.
I would be also careful on mixing the word dumb -> lower brain activity. The study focuses on brain activity. We cannot say for sure either if the lower brain activity results into dumber life choices. Brain activity in those areas == intelligence???
Even worse: proponents of the Neural Efficiency Hypothesis[1] might interpret the "mean brain activation" values reported in the study[2] in the exact opposite manner. :)
Carvana stock didn’t seem to react much at all to that Jan 2 report (higher today than on Jan 1, even)? I wonder if, and possibly how much, Hindenburg lost on that trade.
An alternative technique called “divergence” [1] (pulling your eyes apart) is significantly less straining on your eyes than crossing them (“convergence” [2]) while being equally as effective spotting differences, even on video. It’s also what your eyes naturally do when you watch stereoscopic 3D with tinted glasses—the stereoscopic images are pulled out (divergence) not pushed in (convergence/cross-eyed). I’ve been doing this since I childhood. If you get good at it, you can watch side-by-side 3D videos in 3D with just your naked eye (e.g. VR)! I believe there’s a reddit covering the more prurient variety of that.
This is what I do, the only issue is that I don't have nearly as much "range" with divergence as I do with convergence, so I have to make the pictures as small as possible when using it to line up two images (as opposed to autostereograms, which usually have a much smaller divergence offset).
It's a little more abstract since you don't have handy moving-reference-object like your finger, but: Place the picture in front of something deep, like a long hallway. Look off at something in the distance behind the picture, like the end of the hallway. Notice how the edge of the picture is a double image. Focus on gradually resolving the edge of the picture down from double-image to single-image, and then do the reverse by looking down the hallway again and seeing the picture go back into double-vision. Just keep practicing that until you get the feel for controlling your depth perception and then try holding the same depth of the hallway while you turn your gaze to the picture and try the same action with your eyes.
Damn! After reading this I was surprised by the fact that this sounded very familiar.
I actually "practiced" a lot like this because I was always amused to notice how we could basically "see through" objects with this double-image thingy (see experiment below).
So I decided to film myself... and I was actually already doing a divergence! Not convergence!
Thanks a lot for your comment which made me realize that.
Experiment:
1. place your phone (handy size/shape for the experiment) in front of one eye (X), at about 20cm.
2. close the other eye (Y) and look at your phone
3. Open Y and look straight without focusing on the phone. By blinking Y, the double-image should appear/disappear, as if it was unveiling what's behind your phone.
4. By closing X and with Y open, looking at your phone, you should see it displaced from where it was when X was open and Y was closed. The size of this displacement is equal to the size of the double-image transparent part.
This is called “divergence” [1] and is less straining on your eyes than crossing them (“convergence” [2]) while being equally as effective spotting differences, even on video. It’s also what your eyes naturally do when you watch stereoscopic 3D with tinted glasses—the stereoscopic images are pulled out (divergence) not pushed in (convergence/cross-eyed). I’ve been doing this since I childhood. If you get good at it, you can watch side-by-side 3D videos in 3D with just your naked eye (e.g. VR). I believe there’s a reddit covering the more prurient variety of that!
The only problem with divergence is that you can't go too much farther out than the distance between your eyes, whereas convergence works for larger images as well.
Convergence highlighted the differences for me in all four images.
Divergence only worked for me in the cat bear image. For the others, I could see a combined image but I could not see any differences highlighted, even though I knew what to look for.
See:
> As SANIGER knew, at the time nate was claiming to use AI to automate online purchases, the app’s actual automation rate was effectively 0%. SANIGER concealed that reality from investors and most nate employees: he told employees to keep nate’s automation rate secret; he restricted access to nate’s “automation rate dashboard,” which displayed automation metrics; and he provided false explanations for his secrecy, such as the automation data was a “trade secret.”
> SANIGER claimed that nate's "deep learning models" were "custom built" and use a "mix of long short-term memory, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning."
> When, on the eve of making an investment, an employee of Investment Firm-1 asked SANIGER about nate's automation rate, that is, the percentage of transactions successfully completed with nate's AI technology, SANIGER claimed that internal testing showed that "success ranges from 93% to 97%."
(from [1])
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1396131/dl?inline