Whenever somebody makes a benchmark, people complain that the benchmark results are meaningless because they’re gamed. I don’t know why those same people don’t understand that grading on vibes is strictly worse.
Google stupidly positioned their service as if it was a separate console you had to buy games for, which then couldn’t be played anywhere else. The successful streaming services sell you games for non-streaming platforms and then just allow you to stream them as an option.
The notion of “PhD-level research” is too vague to be useful anyways. Is it equivalent to a preprint, a poster, a workshop paper, a conference paper, a journal submission, or a book? Is it expected to pass peer review in a prestigious venue, a mid-tier venue, or simply any venue at all?
There’s wildly varying levels of quality among these options, even though they could all reasonably be called “PhD-level research.”
I'm a professor who trains PhDs in cryptography, and I can say that it genuinely does have knowledge equivalent to a PhD student. Unfortunately I've never gotten it to produce a novel result. And occasionally it does frightening stuff, like swapping the + and * in a polynomial evaluation when I ask it to format a LaTeX algorithm.
It makes sense if you view the HOV lane primarily as a way to reduce emissions, not traffic. This is also why e.g. single-rider motorcycles are often allowed to use HOV lanes as well.
> buying an EV does not actually reduce emissions like magic, unless the owner drives that car for a looooong time. Like 10-15+ years.
I find this timeframe surprising. I did some quick searches and there are models like GREET that suggest the break-even point is much sooner than that in the US. It is difficult to know for certain, of course, as there are many variables.
Regardless, it is of course better to incentivize long-term ownership as well. I think of HOV access as similar to a tax deduction on purchase. It’s a cheap way to provide a carrot for initial EV adoption.
