与「Recred」相关的搜索结果

You don't need an expensive counseling session to reconnect. You need a small daily appreciation. #Relationship# #Recred# #Peace# #DailyRoutine# #DailyHabits# #smallHabits# #HabitTracker# #DailyPlanner#

⚡️The early Bitcoin holder may be one of the cleanest wealth outcomes capitalism can produce. Think about what happened to the rare person who accumulated meaningful Bitcoin very early and actually held it. They did not need to build a 10,000-person company. They did not need customers. They did not need employees. They did not need a board. They did not need to manage LP money. They did not need to continually recreate the economic engine that made them wealthy. They made one extraordinarily consequential capital-allocation decision, survived years of uncertainty, and eventually the asset itself did almost all of the scaling. That is an incredible lifestyle outcome. A founder worth $100M may technically have the same net worth, but much of it can be trapped inside a company requiring their attention, carrying payroll, lawsuits, competition, customers, executives, financing, and constant strategic decisions. The early Bitcoin holder can have $100M sitting in an asset that requires almost no organizational complexity to own. Enormous wealth. Tiny operating surface area. That combination is rare. There is also something profound about how the wealth was created. They recognized a new category before the world agreed the category was real. The wealth came from carrying uncertainty. Bitcoin looked ridiculous. Then dangerous. Then speculative. Then legitimate. Then institutional. Every step upward removed uncertainty while also removing asymmetry. The earliest holders were compensated for occupying the period when the world could still plausibly say the entire thing was worthless. But survivorship bias here is enormous. Thousands of people also concentrated into things they believed were revolutionary and lost everything. Even among people who bought Bitcoin early, many sold at 2x, 5x, 10x, or 50x. Others lost keys. Others got destroyed by exchanges. Others overleveraged. Others simply could not psychologically carry an asset through repeated 70% to 90% drawdowns while everyone around them told them they were insane. So the extraordinary outcome required several things to happen together: see correctly very early, size enough for being right to matter, survive enormous volatility, preserve custody, and resist selling when the gain already looked life-changing. That is almost impossibly difficult in real time. The highest form of wealth creation may actually be finding a very small number of generational capital-allocation decisions rather than continually maximizing labor output. One Bitcoin-like decision can compress decades of economic effort into ownership of the right thing at the right moment. Afterward, the entire purpose of wealth can change. You no longer need to optimize for more work. You can optimize for autonomy. Time. Privacy. Research. Relationships. Travel. Building things because they matter to you rather than because they need to pay you. And compared with becoming a billionaire CEO whose phone can never truly be turned off, the anonymous person who quietly owns enormous permanent capital may have won a different and arguably more valuable game. The founder builds a machine powerful enough to create freedom later. The generational investor finds an asset powerful enough to make the machine unnecessary. That second outcome is incredibly rare. But when it happens, the lifestyle asymmetry is almost absurd.

I liked this chart so much I had to recreate it I flipped the axis so that top right is best (tip by @marckohlbrugge and @daniellockyer) My chart is based on data, which for quality of life includes people actually liking the place, climate, healthcare, schools but also air quality You can also select [ X ] Only places I've been and it checks your travel history and shows you those, in my case, I've barely been to places in the bottom left (high cost, low quality) P.S. places at war get a reduced quality of life score on as they always have been, doesn't matter who started it, which is why Israel shows as low, without conflict it'd be in the top left (inb4 cancelled)

Claude's watermark probably doesn't work how you think. As the CTO of GPTZero, I'll explain how Anthropic, Google and OpenAI are building text watermarking in this brief explainer and whether it can be defeated. Almost all forms of watermarking that are fast and cheap enough for a frontier lab have the same formula, following the KGW method: In generation: 1. Let's say you've generated n tokens so far. Take those n tokens + a secret key to generate a random hash 2. Use that hash to randomly reweight the probabilities for the n+1 token, and then sample from that new distribution. In the simple case, you could split 50% of all English words into a green or red set based on your hash, and boost the probability of words in the green set. For watermark detection: 1. For each token, see if it was in the green or red set. 2. To do this, recreate the hash based on the secret key and the text preceding the current token. Then, recreate the green and red set of words. 3. Once you've checked all the words in the text, if the next token is selected disproportionally from the green set more than 50% of the time, you claim the text has the watermark. I can tell you want to ask the following: 1) Isn't it easy to mess up the hash if you paraphrase the text? The answer is mostly yes, however, you can use a statistical model to get your hash instead of a deterministic function (SIR, Adaptive Watermark). Since the entire watermark is probabilistic, this is fine. 2) Doesn't this make the text much worse? The answer is yes, it does - Yes, it does – but for most people, it's imperceptible (Google claims in human feedback study with 20,000 texts), since there are exponentially many ways to write the same paragraph. DiPmark does something more sophisticated to avoid shifting the text distribution on average. Of course, watermarks fail on short text or highly predictable texts like "2+2=4". 3) Shouldn't it be easy to figure out the green and red sets? The answer is no. You would need an exponentially large number of samples from the watermarker to reconstruct those sets exactly, but it's a risk if the detector is open to the wild (Watermark Stealing) Still, there are couple challenges that a frontier lab needs to overcome: 1. Their watermark needs to work token-by-token because they are streaming their text to users. Many watermark methods plan sentences or paragraphs at a time, or change the text after its entirely written, in order to make their watermark robust to paraphrasers, and a frontier lab cannot afford to do this yet (SemStamp, PostMark) 2. If the secret key leaks, the watermark is busted. To avoid a large blast damage from this, you need to have a couple secret keys in rotation. 3. There are some texts, like code, that cannot be arbitrarily changed, otherwise the code will break. In those cases, the watermark needs to selectively change words in parts of the text that can tolerate synonyms (i.e. like variable naming) - see SWEET, EWD, Invisible Entropy. 4. They will need to educate their users on how to deal with false positives and false negatives of a detector, which is a big challenge (one we put a lot of effort into) So, how do I see this playing out in the next 6 months? 1. If Anthropic releases the watermark detector publically, I think they defeat their own watermark. People find reliable watermark removal strategies by testing against Anthropic (AI detectors like GPTZero have an advantage here because they can train against these adversaries once they become popular). 2. If they keep the detector private to the government, like Google has done, it's "safer". However, there are some papers showing trained approaches that work robustly to zero-shot break watermarks without any data, simply because they try to write the text just like a human (Zhang et al. 2024, Watermarks in the Sand). Also, making your detector makes it battle-tested and stronger long-term (my experience). 3. In my testing, the watermarks don't survive intense paraphrasing (especially if you combine word choice and syntax attacks), or human text substitution (rewrite your AI text by plagiarizing human authors). The free paraphrasers I've tried have quickly bypassed Google Deepmind's SynthId for what it's worth. 4. All-in-all, frontier labs are likely okay with this because they expect most users to not attack the watermark, and also because they + European regulators likely don't care past a certain point - its good enough. 5. Overall, I think users of frontier LLMs will not really care about this, because 1) they don't realize watermarks are there, 2) EU will force everyone to conform, 3) this seems more like regulatory hoop-jumping than an earnest effort from frontier labs to expose LLM use Lastly, people's first concern shouldn't be watermarking, it should be AI detectors! If you're posting, "its not X, its Y!!", I don't think the watermark is going to make a difference :)