3 to 18 months of making something a priority.

A breakthrough is just the beginning of at least 3 months, and upwards of 18 months to solidify the thing IME. It's difficult for people to make commitments this big.

In Therevada there's a saying that 'insights are infinite' meaning that there is no end to nifty things you can notice about the mind, but most aren't of durable value.

Nobody would see sad movies if sympathy and empathy were the same thing. Highly sympathetic people avoid those who suffer because they don't want to experience that. Empathy enables moving towards suffering because compassion is a positive experience.

Are there any papers on current efforts to tokenize video and estimating the size of available data for that?

Reasonable, I don't know much about the situation

Reading between the lines on the responses, it sounds like op doesn't have the ability to evaluate grants effectively and has attribute substituted itself to doing things that superficially look like evaluation and selecting internally for people who are unable to distinguish between appearance and actuality. This sounds like a founder effect, downstream of Dustin and Cari being unable to evaluate. This seems like it rhymes with the VC world having a similar dynamic where people on the outside assume it's about funding cutting edge highly uncertain projects but, after lots of wasted effort, those interested in such high variance projects eventually conclude that VC mostly selects for low variance with a bias towards insiders.

That is to say: investors recognize that they don't have expertise in selecting unusual projects, so they hire people to ostensibly specialize in evaluating unusual projects, but their own taste in selecting the evaluators means that the evaluators eventually select/are selected for pleasing the investors.

To be specific: some combination of op/gv acts like its opportunity cost for capital is quite high, and it's unclear why. One hypothesis is 'since we're unable to evaluate grants, if we're profligate with money we will be resource pumped even more than we already are.'

My impression for several years has been that the effort people trying to do interesting work put into trying to engage with ea was wasted, and led to big emotional let downs that impacted their productivity.

There continue to be almost no weirdness dollars available. Temporary availability of weirdness dollars seem to get eaten by those who are conventionally attractive but put on quirky glasses and muss up their hair to appear weird. Like geek protagonists in movies. There's no escaping the taste of the founder in the long run.

Feels complicated to atomize for some of the same reasons it's a candidate. Think the modern most successful area was PayPal where they had the feedback loop of millions a day being lost to fraud at one point early on.

Oops meant aistudio.google.com

I think there's a possibility for ui people to make progress on the reputation tracking problem by virtue of tight feedback loops relative to people thinking more abstractly about it. The most rapid period of learning in this regard that I know of is early days at PayPal eBay where they were burning millions a day in fraud at certain points.

Secondly: the chat interface for llm is just bad for power users. Ai Labs is slightly better but still bad.

Edit: meant aistudio

Definitely for preference cascades. For common knowledge I'd say it's about undermining of common knowledge formation (eg meme to not share salary, strong pressure not to name that emperor is naked, etc.)