> Ultimately, we found that the claim that medieval peasants worked around 150 days a year is still largely accepted as a valid estimate by academic economic historians, at least in England for a period starting around 1350 and lasting between a few decades and more than a century, depending on the methodology used to study the data.
As below;
Totally agree - their lives were no doubt hard and busy with back breaking work - my 'yes' was a 'yes it is a trope' - not a 'yes they barely worked
There is a social aspect. I think there was a Friends episode where one of the characters got left out of business advancement because she didn't smoke cigarettes and wasn't in the smoking area socializing with the boss and another employee was.
Simon, do you write anywhere how do you manage to be so... active? Between your programming tools, blogging, job (I assume you work?) where do you find the time/energy?
The trick is not to have an employer: I'm "freelance" aka working full time on my open source projects and burning down my personal runway from a startup acquisition. At some point I need to start making proper money again.
Don't see how this discredits the article. Making 1M a year as an autistic person might just mean you're a good trader that requires 0 human interaction. Says nothing about anything really.
Just a clarification, they tuned on the public training dataset, not the semi-private one. The 87.5% score was on the semi-private eval, which means the model was still able to generalize well.
That being said, the fact that this is not a "raw" base model, but one tuned on the ARC-AGI tests distribution takes away from the impressiveness of the result — How much ? — I'm not sure, we'd need the un-tuned base o3 model score for that.
In the meantime, comparing this tuned o3 model to other un-tuned base models is unfair (apples-to-oranges kind of comparison).
