There are multiple camps of people, and everyone thinks the other camps are doing it wrong.
- full autonomous camp
- developer augmentation camp
- no-ai camp
The trouble I see with all of it is that the future seems unpredictable at the moment. The costs related to AI are low enough at the moment that full autonomous seems to be possible, but we have reasons to believe that costs will rise significantly, which may change that calculus. The no-AI camp is in ostrich mode, and is betting on this all going away once the bubble pops. The developer augmentation camp treats it like just another tool, which is somewhere in the middle.
The trouble is that even if there is a clear advantage today, the ground truth of costs built in is probably not stable.
Yeah I agree with this. I have my own preferences (augmentation, which is obviously right, because it's my camp and I wouldn't be in that camp if it were the wrong one, duh!), but I'm glad there are so many people doing so many different things and debating each other about it. That kind of messiness is the only way to figure this out.
They see the threat of open weight models, which are approaching the usability of their models.
By arguing that the AI is dangerous, they are really arguing that someone 'trusted' needs to monitor the situation, so that the outcome is aligned with existing power.
They are trying to scare the world into forbidding others the right to use and develop AI.
Open weight models are "decelerationist" (i.e. they drain funding from the training of frontier proprietary models), not fine-tuned on any of the even slightly dangerous stuff (e.g. middling scores on cyber benchmarks, with the bulk of ability focused on defense. Biology will be much the same story, except that it's orders of magnitude harder than even cyber!) and not generally deployed with any of the extreme test-time compute (10,000 parallel agents working for a week or 1,000 working for months, seriously? A multi million-dollar token cost for a single task?) that are enabling the proprietary stuff to engage in the dumb casual mischief we've been witnessing as of late. If you're worried about AI being dangerous, you should be welcoming open models.
I think the current state isn't what the frontier labs are worried about. The real issue is the dynamic that open weight models create.
The frontier labs are investing TONS of capital into training the new 'best model ever'. Today, that doesn't make economic sense, it loses money. So where's the business? The future, where token costs reflect the costs involved.
For that to be corrected, the labs need to get people using the models for things they depend on, then they turn dial up on cost. The ordering there is critical. It has to become indispensable first, then costs go up.
The trouble is, open weight models are rapidly becoming usable in what is looking like the big market: coding. Step 2 (the costs go up) doesn't work if there is a ready off-ramp that doesn't require frontier models.
However, if they can effectively make open weight model development illegal (its dangerous!), their business strategy can remain intact. A nice side effect is that they will be effectively be granted an oligopoly "for humanity's safety".
If they can convince the populace that a text generator is an existential threat to humanity, that's a hard argument to combat.
Edit: I think it is ridiculous that autocomplete on steroids is an existential threat. There's no way anything harmful happens until you actually use it as part of important systems. By that reasoning, you could make it illegal to use AI in important systems, but do you think that's the argument the frontier labs are making to governments?
If you play poker, it is the equivalent of pushing 'portions' of your bet out at a time. You push the portion, observe their face and body language, and maybe push the rest.
The 'that was for my assistant' is just something they say to explain away the earlier quoted price. They are pretending that what they said wasn't the quote for this conversation, it was for another, different conversation, between the salesman and their assistant. This only works when the assistant is not in the call.
> Approximately 80% of the water (typically freshwater) withdrawn by data centers evaporates, with the remaining water discharged to municipal wastewater facilities.
Is that supposed be a lot? That article states that all US data centers combined consume 450 million gallons a day, equivalent to 90 towns, which does not sound like very much.
I'm not the one here making assertions, I'm asking questions of the person making claims. I'll leave it to others to judge what is 'a lot' or 'reasonable'.
I don't think 'anyone who thinks X is Y' is a good basis for discussion, which is the real point.
I would guess that a dislike for reduce overlaps with a preference with imperative languages.
Filter and map are easy because you can make more assertions about them without inspection:
- they take a list-like as input
- they take a function as input
- they return a list-like as output
As opposed to reduce:
- it takes a list-like as input
- it takes a function as input
The output type is not fixed, and its behavior is not fixed. If you pass the right function, reduce is filter, or map, or something else we've never seen.
I'd have to be pretty sure I could use the hardware forever without a login for me to let it near my systems. Anything with firmware or a security footprint would not qualify.
I might accept a Meta paperclip into my house, but then again, why risk it ;)
Meta's game is to do all sorts of dirty tricks to pull you into its data. No thanks.
Walking around wearing Meta’s hardware supports them by you advertising their product (unless you never show anyone that you own the hardware).
The existence of a used market also slightly increases the value of new things. By buying used, you’re supporting/signaling the used market and indirectly supporting the company.
If you don’t want to support a company, don’t go near their products.
“Advertising the product” is an extremely mild form of support in this case.
Your criticism of buying used is complete nonsense. Secondary markets have put companies out of business. You’re not “signaling” anything except that the price is too high.
You are right, it's double-edged. In some cases it can hurt companies (e.g. luxury good companies) while in other cases it can benefit them (e.g. car companies benefit from the second-hand market in many ways). It's a fascinating economics+psychology topic.
He's saying you can replace 'something' for 'other' in each of those patterns.
reply