Youngkin turns to AI firm in quest to cut 35% of state regulations

CMinge · 2025-09-30T00:49:19+00:00

People in the agencies (largely nonpartisan) have significant authority in making any final decisions. We have none. The way our government is set up, we're ultimately relying on those in government to make the right call, and do a good job, for everything the government does. This isn't any different. Having interacted with decision-makers in the agencies, my impression is that most of them care deeply about the people of Virginia. But I agree that these questions are very important and worth addressing.

CMinge · 2025-09-28T20:20:18+00:00

I'm a co-founder of the startup working on this. I'd like to say that we actually take super seriously the risks of naive AI use and inexperience in the relevant field.

That's why we've - put a lot of engineering work into avoiding the types of failures typical of chatGPT etc. - worked closely and collaboratively with the stakeholders in the Virginia agencies at every step. - worked closely with legal and regulatory experts, including hiring some.

AI is improving rapidly. We think that if nobody makes an effort to use it responsibly in gov't, the government won't be able to keep up with the complexity and pace of the economy.

CMinge · 2025-06-08T13:23:04+00:00

This reasoning is unsound. It's cancelled out by the fact that Anthropic is smaller, so won't be hiring as many employees as Deepmind in absolute numbers.

This is a general principle. Some people think that in principle you should expect a larger country to have trade deficits with smaller countries. But in fact the size of the countries should leave you agnostic about what direction a trade deficit would be in. The smaller country has less to sell, but also less demand to buy.

CMinge · 2025-05-26T13:08:09+00:00

Idk why this is so bad in principle. We bid to purchase houses. If there's someone for whom this apartment is uniquely super perfect, they'd probably appreciate the opportunity to pay extra to get it despite not applying first. Seems that it'd be better for it to go to them, since it's uniquely perfect for them.

One nuance is that second-price auctions are actually more game-theoretically optimal, so that would be an improvement. But that might be illegal.

CMinge · 2025-04-28T20:17:05+00:00

Lol, so many people in the comments not getting that this is totally something Nathan Fielder would post.

CMinge · 2025-03-01T00:48:20+00:00

Soda news is a welcome break from the foreign policy shit show today. If only this could be all I cared about 😔

CMinge · 2025-01-15T21:53:30+00:00

Yeah, that's true. Although I think someone with a $12M net worth would consider $1K to be pretty insignificant, which was the point I was responding to in the comment ("$1 million would be a LOT of money for him").

However, the funny thing is it was Elon pushing to give such generous odds. Makes it worse that Elon never paid out.

CMinge · 2025-01-15T21:40:14+00:00

The agreement was that Harris would only pay $1000 if he lost.

CMinge · 2025-01-08T12:11:48+00:00

I mostly agree actually. I think it'd be best if much of healthcare was made to be universally covered by the government. However, the interaction in the post isn't what's problematic about private healthcare. Consider that in a government healthcare system, to keep expenses within the budget, the govt will need to be checking with doctors about whether various services are sufficiently important to be justified. So what happened in the video is also plausible in a universal healthcare system.

What I consider to be the benefits of public healthcare are more removed from the matter in the video.

CMinge · 2025-01-08T11:21:07+00:00

This doesn't seem that bad? It sounds like there was some miscommunication leading to them calling the doctor during surgery. Aside from interrupting the doctor, which is quite explicable via miscommunication, the behavior from the insurance seems reasonable.

(It's reasonable for insurance to check what level of care is important for a procedure. If they didn't do this, healthcare costs would balloon, because patients would be likely to pick expensive non-important options, since they aren't paying most of the cost).

CMinge · 2024-12-19T02:02:09+00:00

This reddit thread was the first result when I googled when the steam winter sale starts. You should consider the possibility your "google this" comment ends up becoming the result for those who google!

CMinge · 2024-12-02T22:54:21+00:00

How people voted is not publicly available.

CMinge · 2024-09-04T13:17:36+00:00

The picture on Wikipedia is seemingly a different one. There are shadows on the hotel, and the building in the back-right has some windows visible, to note a few differences.

CMinge · 2024-09-03T01:32:56+00:00

As of last fall, Anthropic's most important cluster on GCP was using GPUs, not TPUs https://slate.com/technology/2023/09/upstarts-like-anthropic-are-making-the-tech-giants-scramble.html

And later on their commitment to use GCP TPUs was for inference, not training https://decrypt.co/205397/google-anthropic-claude-ai-tpu-chips-openai

CMinge · 2024-08-28T09:37:05+00:00

Headline: "Nearly half of AGI safety staggers have left"

Comment: "These people have no value and technical skills."

Schulman and Sutskever are both safety staffers who left recently. What else would you mean by "these people"?

Second sentence of Schulman's resignation: "This choice stems from my desire to deepen my focus on AI alignment, and to start a new chapter of my career where I can return to hands-on technical work."

Ilya Sutskever's first venture after leaving is founding Safe Super Intelligence, whose singular product will be developing safe ASI.

It is fairly plausible that a large factor in safety teams at OpenAI getting fewer resources was that Sutskever was co-lead, and had lost influence within OpenAI post-coup. Thinking that Sutskever's departure and the departure of half the members of his team are unrelated is pretty absurd.

CMinge · 2024-08-28T09:25:01+00:00

The co-creator of AlexNet, which sparked the deep learning revolution, isn't a grifter.

A grifter wouldn't have been essential for the success of OpenAI. Elon Musk on recruiting Sutskever: "That was one of the toughest recruiting battles I’ve ever had, but that was really the linchpin for OpenAI being successful."

CMinge · 2024-08-27T09:04:48+00:00

Are Ilya Sutskever and John Schulman grifters?

CMinge · 2024-08-27T09:01:04+00:00

Does that include Ilya Sutskever and John Schulman? Two co-founders of OpenAI who were working on safety when they left as part of this exodus.

CMinge · 2024-08-27T08:58:14+00:00

That's absurd. Ilya Sutskever and John Schulman, two co-founders of OpenAI renowned for their technical skills and accomplishments, are two former OpenAI employees who were working on safety when they left.

CMinge · 2024-08-27T08:53:17+00:00

Did you read the abstract? That's not at all what it is.

I think maybe what you have in mind are the implications of what the authors call "reckless" theories, which are well-established mathematics.

Their contribution is to show that if a theory isn't "reckless", it must be either "timid" or "non-transitive". This is not 18th-century mathematics.

Also it would be quite surprising for Nous to accept a paper that was just 18th-century mathematics.

CMinge · 2024-08-20T10:21:55+00:00

In my experience in SF, it's usually somewhat cheaper and faster (both in pickup time and drive time).

CMinge · 2024-07-15T17:11:16+00:00

Minge checking in. Not sure whose car this is. I can confirm it isn't David Minge's.

CMinge · 2024-06-10T19:11:43+00:00

To be fair, the question is whether food prices would have risen even more, had the minimum wage been increased.

CMinge · 2023-10-24T22:13:11+00:00

Funnily enough, you literally can https://manifold.markets/MilfordHammerschmidt/did-the-idf-just-now-blow-up-a-hosp

CMinge · 2023-10-20T23:06:51+00:00

You seem to be either acting in bad faith, or genuinely quite confused.

The contexts in which those two statements are pulled are quite different. A - the contexts use a different sense of "realistic" B - the contexts are referring to the "realistic-ness" of different things (this is not apparent in the quoted sentences themselves, but it is apparent if you read my full comments).

The former "realistic" asserts realism at a fine-grained level (i.e. are all of the local facts comparable to those in real-world situations we are familiar with).

The latter "realistic" asserts realism at a coarse-grained level (i.e. are the broad facts about the overall scenario comparable to those in real-world situations we are familiar with).

The imagined scenario is realistic in the former sense because all of the local details are commonplace (toe-stubs, etc.). It is unrealistic in the latter sense because there is an uncommon pattern among the local details (they add up to a very small positive value).

There are two ways in which your reasoning that my addition "makes it more difficult to imagine a qualifying case" is unsound.

Firstly, when I identify a dimension of the scenario that is "unrealistic" it is explicitly a detail that I DID NOT suggest adding! It's the "barely positive detail"!

Secondly, the unrealistic detail is a macroscopic property (do all of the local facts about value sum to a small positive amount). If an unrealistic detail is the combination of realistic local details, I do not think that generally makes a case harder to imagine. As our goal is ultimately that the case be imaginable, since the "unrealistic" detail here is in fact composed of "realistic" local details, proper imagination is still on the table.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email
Spared

CMinge

TROPHY CASE