fabio maia

The real world is complex.

Brooke Rollins, Secretária de Agricultura de Donald Trump, fala sobre a JBS, um dos frigoríficos investigados aqui nos EUA por possível conluio: “tem um histórico documentado de corrupção internacional e atividades ilícitas”

A nota do Brasil no PISA é uma daquelas silenciosas e muito graves mazelas nacionais. E ela explica muita, muita, mas muita coisa...

Jamais vou me esquecer disso. Esse lazarento nunca verá meu voto

Daqui a pouco, ninguém vai mais pagar em dia sabendo que o governo vai abonar o mau pagador.

AI made some scientists 44% more productive. And did almost nothing for the rest. An MIT economist just published the most rigorous real-world study ever done on what AI actually does to scientific output and the finding splits the research community in half in a way nobody wanted to see. The paper is called "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation." Written by Aidan Toner-Rodgers at MIT. Published December 25, 2024. It is not a survey or a simulation. It exploits the randomized introduction of a new materials discovery AI tool to 1,018 scientists in the R&D lab of a large US firm. EdTech Innovation Hub Real scientists. Real lab. Real randomization. Half got the AI. Half did not. Then the researchers measured everything. AI-assisted researchers discovered 44% more materials, resulting in a 39% increase in patent filings and a 17% rise in downstream product innovation. These compounds possess more novel chemical structures and lead to more radical inventions. 44% more discoveries. 39% more patents. 17% more products reaching the market. The numbers are extraordinary. But here is the finding buried inside those numbers that should stop everyone cold. The technology has strikingly disparate effects across the productivity distribution: while the bottom third of scientists see little benefit, the output of top researchers nearly doubles. The bottom third of scientists, the ones who were already less productive got almost nothing from AI. The top researchers nearly doubled their output. AI did not lift the floor. It raised the ceiling. AI automates 57% of idea-generation tasks, reallocating researchers to the new task of evaluating model-produced candidate materials. More than half of the creative work, the part of scientific research that involves generating hypotheses, imagining possibilities, making conceptual leaps is now being done by the AI. The human's job is no longer to think of ideas. It is to evaluate the ideas the AI produces. That reallocation helps great scientists. They are good at evaluation. They can quickly identify which AI-generated candidates are worth pursuing. For average and below-average scientists, the ones whose primary contribution was generating ideas rather than evaluating them, the reallocation leaves them with less to do. Not more to produce. Less. Here is what this means for science as an institution. Every major research university in the world has thousands of scientists across the full productivity distribution. Funding bodies allocate resources assuming a certain distribution of output. Career paths are structured around the assumption that junior researchers can grow into senior ones through the practice of idea generation. If AI now generates 57% of the ideas and the primary beneficiaries of that shift are the scientists who were already at the top, the middle and bottom of the scientific workforce is not being augmented. It is being made redundant. And unlike the layoffs in tech and customer service, nobody is publicly acknowledging it yet. Source: Toner-Rodgers · MIT · "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation" · arXiv:2412.17866 · December 2024 · arxiv.org/abs/2412.17866

O maior programa de transferência de renda dos pobres para banqueiros continua em pleno funcionamento. Pagar juros é bom demais.

Presidente ‘vermelho’ do TST recebeu quase meio milhão em apenas 3 meses claudiodantas.com.br/presidente-do-… Isso aqui tá com cara de justiça social?

Os estatistas em geral não entendem que o Estado é um ponto único de falha e ainda compulsório Pro Estado ser eficiente você precisa de burocratas prescientes e benévolos, tomando decisões sobre a vida dos outros O mercado alcança eficiência por incentivos e autointeresse

😱 Outbreak on a ship: 150 people unable to disembark due to a dangerous virus The cruise liner MV Hondius is in a critical situation off the coast of Cape Verde. A hantavirus outbreak is suspected on board. At least three people have died, and several cases are severe. A 70-year-old passenger was the first to die. His wife later passed away. Another person has also died, their identity is still being confirmed. A British citizen is in critical condition, and two crew members urgently need medical assistance. More infections cannot be ruled out. The ship has requested help, but passengers are not allowed to go ashore. Local authorities and the WHO are now involved, working on how to evacuate the sick. Hantavirus is a rare but dangerous infection, usually transmitted from rodents. It can cause severe illness, affecting the respiratory system.

@peterrhague Dawkins didn’t say AIs are conscious. His question is actually great and not new: what’s the evolutionary value of consciousness?

Being made uncertain about the nature of consciousness after a conversation with an LLM is a lot less embarrassing than believing in flying horses. Yes, Mehdi, we remember.

As coisas polêmicas que Zema disse na última semana são apenas suco de bom senso com matemática. O problema é que bom senso é algo em extinção no Brasil, e apenas 5% sai da escola sabendo matemática adequadamente.

People thinking that Richard Dawkins said that Claude is a conscious is a clear sign that we have a digital literacy problem

💎Ministros do STF estão esvaziando a competência do TSE sem terem a competência para julgar os casos que avocam para si. Rasgaram a imunidade parlamentar de senadores que os criticam, prevista na Constituição Federal. No caso de Romeu Zema, o foro jamais poderia ser o STF, pois Zema não tem foro por prerrogativa de função no STF. Na prática, os ministros estão driblando o TSE que será presidido pelo Ministro Nunes Marques para controlar - e restringir - a liberdade de expressão de candidatos às eleições do Brasil.

Timeline interessante revelada por essa reportagem do Estadão. 15 e 18/12/23: J&F e a JBS transferem R$ 11,5 milhões a um escritório de advocacia. No mesmo dia 18, o escritório transfere R$ 3,5 milhões a Paulo Humberto Barbosa 20/12/23: Toffoli suspende multa de R$ 10,3 Bilhões do acordo de leniência da J&F Fev/2025: Paulo Humberto compra a fatia de Toffoli no resort Tayayá estadao.com.br/politica/jf-e-…

@elivieira Como disse um famoso advogado americano (Charlie Munger): Mostre-me os incentivos que te mostrarei o problema. STF eliminou o pagto da Sucumbencia, qdo o trabalhador perde a causa. Ou seja, deu incentivo p/ Litigancia de Má Fé, óbvio, q o número de processos trabalhistas foi 🚀

#Economia 💰 Rombo fiscal anualizado supera R$ 1,2 trilhão, o maior da história 📈 Saldo negativo nas contas públicas subiu 28,4% em 1 ano; dívida voltou ao patamar da pandemia de covid-19 ✍️: @FerrariHamilton ⬇️ Leia no Poder360: poder360.com.br/poder-economia…

Thanks to @jdlichtman and the organizers of the Stanford symposium on the Future of Mathematics! There were a lot of really interesting talks, which you can watch here: @fomathematics?si=-qZt5vHrtdm-eMn7" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">youtube.com/@fomathematics…

Manifesto pelo fim do "Ministério da Verdade" - Assine a petição! c.org/yDMCXscg6V via @change_br

CODEX SKILL TO BRUTALLY TEST ANY STARTUP IDEA! Most startup ideas sound good. This Codex skill tells you why they probably won’t work. Just give Codex your idea and it pressure-tests it for you -> finds the core assumption -> exposes fatal flaws -> checks if the problem is real -> maps real competitors -> plans your first 10 customers -> defines a 2 week MVP Install: npx --yes codex-startup-pressure-test-skill@latest 100% open source. Repo in bio

"My parents died years ago. I was very close to them. I still miss them terribly. I know I always will. I long to believe that their essence, their personalities, what I loved so much about them, are — really and truly — still in existence somewhere. I wouldn't ask very much, just five or ten minutes a year, say, to tell them about their grandchildren, to catch them up on the latest news, to remind them that I love them. There's a part of me — no matter how childish it sounds — that wonders how they are. “Is everything all right?” I want to ask. The last words I found myself saying to my father, at the moment of his death, were “Take care.” Sometimes I dream that I'm talking to my parents, and suddenly — still immersed in the dreamwork — I'm seized by the overpowering realization that they didn't really die, that it's all been some kind of horrible mistake. Why, here they are, alive and well, my father making wry jokes, my mother earnestly advising me to wear a muffler because the weather is chilly. When I wake up I go through an abbreviated process of mourning all over again. Plainly, there's something within me that's ready to believe in life after death. And it's not the least bit interested in whether there's any sober evidence for it. So I don't guffaw at the woman who visits her husband's grave and chats him up every now and then, maybe on the anniversary of his death. It's not hard to understand. And if I have difficulties with the ontological status of who she's talking to, that's all right. That's not what this is about. This is about humans being human." — Carl Sagan