Aren't these different things? Private yes, for profit no. It was private because it's not like it was run by the US government.
I think there's a solid case for anyone who supported funding OpenAI being considered at best well intentioned but very naive. I think the idea that we should align and develop superintelligence but, like, good, has always been a blind spot in this community - an obviously flawed but attractive goal, because it dodged the painful choice between extinction risk and abandoning hopes of personally witnessing the singularity or at least a post scarcity world. This is also a case where people's politics probably affected them, because plenty of others would be instinctively distrustful of corporation driven solutions to anything - it's something of a Godzilla Strategy after all, aligning corporations is also an unsolved problem - but those with an above average level of trust in free markets weren't so averse.
Such people don't necessarily have conflicts of interest (though some may, and that's another story) but they at least need to drop the fantasy land stuff and accept harsh reality on this before being of any use.
I admit it's cheating a bit the spirit of the challenge, but in practice, I guess it's the round amount that makes me suspicious that it might be intentional. But it's true there doesn't seem to be a broader materials related pattern, so it may just be as you say.
I find a pattern in that buildings using Dreams together with either Wood or Silver have an 80% chance of being Impossible when made by a Self-Taught architect, but honestly this seems irrelevant since the other two types of background are a 100% guarantee so they're better value for money anyway.
Fair, depends how hard it is to do that though, I assumed inserting a target gene would be easier than triggering death in a cell that has probably hopelessly broken its apoptosis mechanism.
Question: would it be possible to use retroviruses to target cancer cells selectively to insert a gene that expresses a target protein, and then do monoclonal antibody treatment on that? Would the cancer accelerated metabolism make this any good?
Albeit with wilder swings, current 80 year olds in the US lived and worked through some of the years of highest GDP growth ever. That's not necessarily reproducible. In addition, one's net worth isn't just a linear function of the integral of the GDP throughout their life. For example, being able to buy a house early is a big boost because now you have capital that appreciates, possibly faster than the interests on your debt accrue. Meanwhile if you have to rent, your money disappears down a black hole. Guess what's a big difference between Boomers and Gen Z.
Only if you believe this is a natural stationary progression. In practice, it very likely is not, and current 20 years old won't be as rich as current 80 years old if only they manage to survive 60 years.
I'm skeptical a humanities education doesn't show up in earnings.
The question is more about whether a humanities degree does. It may be that the humanities "genius" is not something you catch in a bottle successfully. After all, the most successful authors don't usually come out of a special Author College. An employer might appreciate theoretically the talent without thinking it significantly correlates with any one degree. And on the other hand, someone like Steve Jobs certainly did have quite a bit of this knack - design and branding require artistic sensibility - yet he's mainly seen as a STEM figure.
If its boredom, better to subsidize the YouTubers, podcasters, and TikTokers than the colleges
The problem with this is that there absolutely are plenty of humanities studies that require time, impartiality and rigour, and that sort of format has all the wrong incentives for it. I think in many ways the subdivision is sort of artificial. History or philology for example are, much like natural sciences, digging towards one truth that theoretically exists, but is inaccessible save for indirect evidence. They're not creative, artistic or particularly subjective pursuits. "Human sciences" would be a more appropriate name for them.
I'm not sure if those are precisely the terms of the charter, but that's besides the point. It is still "private" in the sense that there is a small group of private citizens who own the thing and decide what it should do with no political accountability to anyone else. As for the "non-profit" part, we've seen what happens to that as soon as it's in the way.