Who knows? Do NeurIPS have a pedigree of original, well sourced research dating back to before the advent of LLMs? We're at the point where both of the terms "AI" and "Experts" are so blurred it's almost impossible to trust or distrust anything without spending more time on due diligence than most subjects deserve.
As the wise woman once said "Ain't nobody got time for that".
Almost all of Pratchett's greatest characters are highly flawed, morally complex and anti-heroic. This is the main point. This premise includes everyone from Cohen the barbarian, through Vimes, Rincewind, Susan, all the witches, Moist Von Lipwig, all the way to DEATH.
That's one of the main reasons that Terry's work comprehensively bridges the genre gap between "children's books" and "modern philosophy".
I realize 'midtagonist' is a standard sloppy internet neologism, but technically it should be 'midagonist', or maybe 'mesagonist' to keep it fully Greek.
That's like asking "what does rent have to do with property prices?". Just because you've managed to be on the top of this perverse social summation of usury doesn't mean it isn't predatory and a net negative for society.
Credit cards are one of the most insidious ways that banks extract money from those living closest to the margins of poverty. The benefits you gain are a fraction of the profits gained from raking the most vulnerable over the coals of bankruptcy. They're a financial instrument of torture and I refuse to have anything to do with them. I'm not by any means rich, but I'm 48 years old, have zero debt, and will spend the rest of my life avoiding debt.
No it's actually like asking what cars have to do with debt. You can have a car without going into debt just like how you can have a credit card without debt.
Since you have such high moral standards I hope you don't invest in any index funds because lots of companies in those would probably not live up to your standards
> You can have a car without going into debt just like how you can have a credit card without debt.
Technically this is actually impossible.
You have debt the moment you swipe/dip/tap that card and make a transaction with it.
That you settle the debt before it incurs interest is absolutely not relevant to the types of folks who do not want to carry debt as a matter of principle. I was one for some time while I figured my life out, and even having $100 hanging over my head for a few days was mentally tiring.
It's exactly the same as borrowing $10 from a friend to cover lunch and stressing about remembering to pay them back next week when you see them.
Some people for various reasons simply do not do well with debt at any level. I do now use credit for day to day things and pay it off every month, but that's the only debt I carry. And it is absolutely in every sense of the word debt. It's just debt that has a 30 day interest-free grace period.
It has been legal for sellers to ask buyers to pay more if they use a credit card for 15 years now.
There is no "moral" quandary. Sellers that have the same price for credit and non credit payment methods are simply betting that people using credit will be more willing to pay higher prices overall and still buy from them compared to their competitors' with lower prices who charge more for credit cards.
Every year, fewer and fewer of my expenses are paid with a credit card because more and more sellers are not betting on this. My kids' gymnastics class/tutoring/daycare charges 3% or more for credit cards. My home wired ISP and mobile network provider charges 5% more for credit cards. My property tax, insurance, water/sewer utility, all charge 3% or more. Even Target charges 5% for credit cards. Basically all tradespeople that come to fix things on my house charge extra and ask for Zelle/Venmo electronic cash payments instead.
So in all these cases, I do not use a credit card to pay. But the point is, it is up to the seller to decide what price they want to charge for credit and non credit, so there is no "moral" quandary for buyers. No one's hand is being forced.
Edit: to respond to comment below due to hitting posting limit, the extra charge does not go to the card issuer, the seller collects the higher price. If I choose to pay with a non credit card payment as a result of the extra charge for credit cards, then the credit card issuer gets nothing.
Whether or not credit card interest rates and terms are usurious or otherwise morally problematic is not a credit card user's moral responsibility. When I use a credit card, I do not ask or enable or incentivize someone else to be taken advantage of.
The extra charges you are describing are a "cherry on the top" for the card issuers. They could easily survive without those charges (in many countries they do). They also act as a convenient diversion. If you think that's the way they make money you will avoid looking into the other ways they make money. Namely, exhorbitant interest rates on defaulted loans by those who were "sold" credit cards with no practical means of ever servicing the debt.
Sorry, I should have specified I was referring to the US. I would be surprised to learn of any other major country that doesn't allow it though, since the US is considered to be among the most hostile to customer protections.
>A PCN cannot stop you from offering your customers a discount or another incentive for using a certain method of payment, as long as you offer it to all your customers and disclose the offer clearly and conspicuously. For example, you can offer your customers a discount or a coupon if they pay with cash or a debit card rather than a credit card.
Morally, they're also quite problematic, imo. Even if you aren't paying interest because you pay off the balance every month, CC companies can only offer points and cash back and all of that other stuff on the backs of the customers who aren't able to pay it off every month. It's a subsidy of the financially illiterate to those who are. If the predatory 20%+ interest rates were banned, the points and rewards programs would disappear overnight.
I know this isn't popular in the USA, but when compared to the rest of the western world, consumer debt is off the charts insane in America and it doesn't have to be that way. I've lived on both sides of the pond and I much prefer a society where people buy things that they can afford instead of financing everything on the back of a hope and dream that they will for sure pay off the balance this month.
As for the "but muh security!!" argument that I can hear someone typing, having a credit card for security is a terrible argument. You should be lobbying your politicians to regulate financial institutions to build better systems that are not susceptible to such obvious exploits and fraud. Again, much of the world has solved this problem to the point where I can post my bank account number on my business website and nothing bad ever happens. Customers can wire me money directly without approval and I have to manually approve all outgoing transactions at least once (scheduled transfers are still possible); it's not rocket science!
In your moral dilemma your assertion is that the credit card companies are only making money off of people who aren't paying off their cards each month which must mean that people like me are costing them money by paying off each month. Since I'm costing these evil companies money then don't I have a moral obligation to continue using my credit card?
As for saying that the argument that using credit cards because they have more fraud and security measures is not a good argument because the world should be different is also quite silly and naive since arguments should be made based on how the world currently operates not how you wish it might operate in the future. Life is much easier when you live in reality
Credit card companies make money from interest on debt. That is undisputed. To pay out your rewards, they need to make a profit above and beyond what it takes to run the business such that they can afford to give you 2% back. This leads to higher interest rates for everyone that are approaching usurious (imo). Your circular argument about costing the evil company money therefore makes your purchases justified, doesn't make sense.
I agree that the US financial system does not currently operate in a manner that is secure for consumers. I am not naive to that reality (I'm also American and have had various amounts of credit card debt throughout my life, and also times when I paid off balances for years). However, that does not diminish the societal responsibility to advocate for a financial system that is more secure by default. The fact that I need to expose myself to more financial risk in one area to circumvent a shortcoming in another area of the market is a bad thing, in my opinion.
Again, I think if we capped interest rates at something reasonable (12% maybe?), it would force credit card companies to more seriously evaluate if their customers can afford the debt they are incurring and this entire problem would disappear overnight. Sure, there would be less rewards programs as revenue would be decreased, but we would make society better as whole by not incentivising a financial instrument that ruins millions of lives annually. We tried doing it this way for almost 50 years and it doesn't seem to be working out for society if you believe the debt/income ratios as a percentage of GDP in the United States.
As to your last point, I'm much happier living in a reality where I own the things I purchase. Nobody is ever going to repo my car if I lose my job. A sheriff/the state is never going to come to my home and take things to pay off a creditor because I hit the unlucky lottery and was injured in a freak accident or Act of God. Please try to engage my arguments in good faith and not make personal attacks about my separation from reality. The rest of the western world is proof that you do not need debt to participate fully in society.
> Your circular argument about costing the evil company money therefore makes your purchases justified, doesn't make sense.
You are saying they make money off of interest which of course is correct. But I don't pay any interest so by your own logic I'm not contributing to this evil company's profit so how is it a moral dilemma? And how is my argument circular?
> The rest of the western world is proof that you do not need debt to participate fully in society.
I'm not advocating for debt. In fact I have no debt, I even own my house outright. Don't try to argue against things that I never even said :)
The main argument that people who seem upset at my original comment keep making is about how they don't want to take on debt to buy something. Well I absolutely agree. I save and invest the majority of the money I make and I've never bought anything on bad debt in my life. But if you learn the absolute basics behind credit cards you can treat it the exact same as a debit card but you get extra benefits. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that lol
> I'm also American and have had various amounts of credit card debt throughout my life
I think this is the key here. You are probably upset about the poor mistakes that you made in the past and you want to blame other people for it. I fully realize that the majority of Americans can't use a credit card responsibly so I'm glad that you are able to see that for yourself but you shouldn't make wide sweeping arguments about why other people shouldn't use them
> I don't pay interest so I'm not contributing to [their profits]...
That's true, but by accruing rewards, you are indirectly incentivising the CC company to increase interest rates to subsidize your usage. If every single CC user didn't carry a balance, there would be no rewards (see Europe).
I think we ended up at a better place here at the end so I will end with the last point.
When I was 17-19 year old, I had a small credit card with a $3k limit. I never hit this limit and it was never a problem on my path to financial freedom and I largely paid off the balance in full every month. My spouse and I were debt free by 26yo after paying off $75k in student loans. My aversion to consumer debt has little to do with my own experience and more to do with how I see it affecting my friends and family and American society more broadly. We put speed limits on roads to protect people from themselves. I'm only advocating for similar guardrails as it pertains to credit cards and other high interest consumer debt.
Especially after moving abroad, I just don't see the point in a system that is built on top of so much debt. It only hurts the most vulnerable people in society while funnelling money back to people who probably don't need it, imo.
Not that big, but absolutely enourmous distances between them. The inter-city highway infrastructure is lacking in EV chargers, but it's getting better.
Just brainstorming here, but would a distributed search index be possible / usable with current network speeds and latency? I'm not sure how to set up the data structure to not require many high latency jumps, but maybe someone has solved this problem.
It's possible, see the YaCy project. It suffer from probably a couple of orders of magnitude too few resources (in the funding/development sense) to really be competitive though.
Over the last few decades I've seen people make the same comment about spell checking, voice recognition, video encoding, 3D rendering, audio effects and many more.
I'm happy to say that LLM usage will only actually become properly integrated into background work flow when we have performant local models.
People are trying to madly monetise cloud LLMs before the inevitable rise of local only LLMs severely diminishes the market.
Time will tell, but right now we're not solving the problem of running LLMs by increasing efficiency, we're solving it by massive, unprecedented investments in compute power and just power. Companies definitely weren't building nuclear power stations to power their spell checkers or even 3D renderers. LLMs are unprecedented in this way.
True, but the usefulness of local models is actually getting better. I hope that the current unprecedented madness is a factor of the potential of cloud models, and not a dismissal of the possibility of local models. It's the biggest swing we've seen (with the possible exception of cloud computing vs local virtualisation) but that may be due to recognition of the previous market behaviour, and a desperate need to not miss out on the current boom.
Yes, a true "mask-off moment": I do find that classic LaTeX papers look more trustworthy than whatever MS Word outputs by default.
Associating TNR with authoritarianism would not even be historically accurate, because many authoritarians pushed to simplify writing (Third Reich, Soviets, CCP); if anything, TNR looks _conservative_, which is probably the look that Rubio is going for.
As the wise woman once said "Ain't nobody got time for that".
reply