311–320 of 447 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cant we use OA intelligence to figure out how to do more with less rather yhan "stupidly" accelerate the climate crisis? the climate crisis + AI is the nightmare
Jevons Paradox says that's not the direction it'll go in.
> It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!) "a few thousand days" is such a funny and fascinating way to say "about a decade" Superficially, reframing it as "days" not "years" is a classic marketing psychology trick, i.e. 99 cents versus a dollar, but I think the more interesting thing is just the way it defamiliarizes the span. A decade means something, but "a few thousand days" f…
"me when i need $6.5B" https://x.com/netcapgirl/status/1838265672096243822
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how he can imagine wars being fought over AI but not wars being fought over resources needed to "build enough infrastructure."
> he can imagine wars being fought over AI I wonder how did he come to such a prediction. When was the last time we had a war over advanced tech? Armies didn't fight over telegraph, radio, phones and cars. A war to get AI would also be foolish. A few hundred bombs from your adversaries and AI won't have electricity to function.
At the risk of belaboring the subtext: It's kind of prediction which flatters the predictor's ego, and exaggerates the importance of the company and its output.
If believed, the claim can be leveraged to boost investor activity, land big contracts, and lobby for special legal/tax benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam’s ambitions are way beyond “salary”.
It's a quote from Upton Sinclair from an era where you generally had to have a profitable business and employees before you had investors.
> If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people. Translation for the rest of us: "we need to fully privatize the OA subsidiary and turn it into…
It's amazing how he can imagine wars being fought over AI but not wars being fought over resources needed to "build enough infrastructure."
Strarship will put into orbit 100tons at $10M or so. I.e. And wars willn't be fought over AI. Wars will be fought using AI. Humans will have no chance in controlling millions of their own and responding to the actions of the millions of the enemy's simultaneously active automated high-precision munitions of all kinds, and that picture leads to a new, non-nuclear this time, AI-based MAD (that of course means that like with nuclear race back then all the parties have to build their capabilities right now as fast as possible, Manhattan project style).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a quote from Upton Sinclair from an era where you generally had to have a profitable business and employees before you had investors.
There were many ventures in the past that got investors without a current profitable going concern. Oil & mining speculation, chartering boat crews to go on exploration expeditions and more.
> If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people. Translation for the rest of us: "we need to fully privatize the OA subsidiary and turn it into…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing a human brain in these terms makes it incredibly obvious how inefficient the human brain actually is. A 1.7T model can answer questions about practically anything. You say a human brain has 150T params. So what? It struggles to give masterful answers in even 1 domain, let alone dozens/hundreds. We need to stop comparing parameters and synapses as if they actually matter, because AFAIK, they really don't.
OTOH humans can e.g. walk on two feet and drive a car.
I want to be wildly optimistic too, but I still see no evidence LLMs generate new knowledge. They always hew in-distribution. Please correct me if I’m wrong