> Amazon gets a lot of flak for totally bungling their internal AI model development, squandering massive amounts of internal compute resources on models that ultimately are not competitive, but the custom silicon is another matter
Juicy. Anyone have a link or context to this? I'd not heard of this reception to NOVA and related.
I think Nova may have changed things here. Prior to Nova their LLMs were pretty rubbish - Nova only came out in December but seems a whole lot better, at least from initial impressions: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/4/amazon-nova/
> this would be a perfect use case for the world’s largest, most powerful government which flaunts his values of freedom, democracy, and other American values to inject its vast resources
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence for Science, Security and Technology (FASST)
DOE is seeking public input to inform how DOE can leverage its existing assets at its 17 national labs and partner with external organizations to support building a national AI capability.
To first order, if doctors work fewer hours, more doctors will be required to serve the aggregate medical demand.
More doctors working on the same amount of medical demand will be an increased supply of doctors, and so will reduce doctors salaries.
This seems like an ideal outcome for consumers, and I suspect the AMA would lobby against this. But American doctors should also be aware that their famously world class compensation might be reduced with this tradeoff.
I'm not sure there would be such a shortage. Here in North Carolina we have a "shortage" of teachers. But there's tons of folks that are qualified, they just can't afford to live on a teacher's salary and don't want to put up with the politics and bad policies. If the state made teaching a valued profession and paid people what they're worth, they'd instantly fill those vacancies.
My housemate is a nurse specializing in ECMO. In the time I've known him, his salary and benefits have been reduced twice. He'd note at his last job how many people were leaving because the scheduling makes it impossible to take time off and the benefits were paltry and getting worse. Three separate people needed to approve his time off requests for PTO he'd earned.
I would bet good money the same thing would happen in medicine. Pay people what they're worth and give them workable hours and lots of folks who are qualified (or easily recertified) for the positions will come out of the woodwork.
Since demand for healthcare is growing rapidly I expect that doctors will still be well paid even if the AMA succeeds in getting Congress to add more residency program funding, and thereby increase the supply.
But if doctors work fewer hours that means the supply of doctor hours will be vastly outstripped by the demand causing the price of a doctor hour to increase. So wouldn't it be a self-balancing mechanism?
How do you propose to make more doctors? Right now the primary bottleneck is limited residency program funding from Medicare. There hasn't been much political appetite for major increases.
Given our aging demographic profile with increasing chronic disease burden the problem is likely to get worse. Expect higher prices and longer waits to see a doctor. A more realistic solution will probably be to shift more primary care to lower credentialed practitioners such as Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners.
"Although biological ageing was accelerated in sedentary and highly active classes, after adjusting for other lifestyle-related factors, the associations mainly attenuated."
"Conclusion:
Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality."
Therefore, the paper isn't supporting the article claim that too much exercise is speeding up aging, rather, that this is dominated by genetics.
> "Conclusion: Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality." Therefore, the paper isn't supporting the article claim that too much exercise is speeding up aging...
The article claim as of when I clicked through:
“This outcome suggests that the longevity associated with physically active individuals could stem more from their overall healthier lifestyles rather than the exercise itself.”
So my takeaway from the article was it's less about the exercise, more about overall health, and, moderation rather than long tail. That seems consistent.
> rather, that this is dominated by genetics.
On the contrary, not sure that's what the paper says, as that implies the exclusion of overall health lifestyle.
Note that phenotype can mean observable characteristics or traits, rather than strictly/solely genetic traits. The usage is common to mean something like "overall health profile".
The paper describes aim to remove paired environments and paired genetics. Diagrams depict control for "familial factors" described as covering "environmental" and "genetics", aiming to remove these from the comparison.
So the study acknowledges that this is all not yet settled. The (potentially damaging) effect of excessive exercise may be stronger what the study found, or it may be neutral (i.e., not actually extending lifespan, but not damaging it either)
It remains to be seen what further studies reveal, but for now the blog is not far off in speculating a potentially damaging effect.
So is it like if a man is physically active but works blue collar low paid job with a lot of physical activity and lives alone and has no degree and probably drinks/smokes lots etc then it is correlated with quicker aging? No shit.
Why even report non adjusted stats then? They just wanted sensational press buzz? Or maybe these stats are still significant?
For example, high bandwidth, low latency interconnects, supporting GPU direct network messaging and IO, are important.
High memory bandwidth is also quite important.
Debugging and performance profiling at scale also commonly uses similar tools.