81–90 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you write off everything popular with the normie zeitgeist?
I would say if there is a decline in society, the normies are wrong. And if there's steady improvement in quality of life, then the normie zeitgeist is correct. But there's always a delay in these things, at least a generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really struggling with seeing how this is immoral.
I learned this in elementary school. When 10 kids join forces to bully one kid, that is immoral. Same with companies and VC money trying to corner a market.
For some things it’s even a worldwide consensus, e.g. any groups with a desire to acquire large amounts of plutonium (who don’t belong to a preapproved list).
There’s even a strong consistent push to make it ever more inescapable, comprehensive, resistant to any possible deviation, etc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you write off everything popular with the normie zeitgeist?
I would say if there is a decline in society, the normies are wrong. And if there's steady improvement in quality of life, then the normie zeitgeist is correct. But there's always a delay in these things, at least a generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously the specifics are going to depend on exactly how a team pegs story points, but if an average engineer delivers 10 story points during a two week sprint, then that would mean that a 1000x engineer would deliver 10000 story points, correct? I don't see how someone can actually believe that.
impact != story points
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I learned this in elementary school. When 10 kids join forces to bully one kid, that is immoral. Same with companies and VC money trying to corner a market.
Isn’t that the point of having a government with laws and regulation… to allow the majority to bully specific undesirable minority groups into submission? For some things it’s even a worldwide consensus, e.g. any groups with a desire to acquire large amounts of plutonium (who don’t belong to a preapproved list). There’s even a strong consistent push to make it ever more inescapable, comprehensive, resistant to any po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is something immoral about a company saying "we are going to spend $100bn this year on building a LLM" The icing on the cake is when all their competitors say "so will we".
I'm really struggling with seeing how this is immoral.
It will take the power away from the workers, such that there will be no power left for people to make demands.
We can hope it’ll be positive, but we aren’t even involved in its creation and the incentives are there to ensure it isn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 10x from 400 billion to 4 trillion in a decade didnt come from 2% inflation. It didnt come from nowhwere, or from Silicon Valleys exceptionalism - It came from changing the value of money, labour and resources. It came from everyday people, deficits and borrowing from the next 10 generations of children.
Seems like this is about something other than LLMs?
You can swap "LLMs" with "pointless wars over books or dirt" if you want - same same, nothing is new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say if there is a decline in society, the normies are wrong. And if there's steady improvement in quality of life, then the normie zeitgeist is correct. But there's always a delay in these things, at least a generation.
What if QoL improves for some but goes down for others?
“The AI capital influx means that mega-projects no longer seem outlandishly expensive. This is good for the world!” Is it? This whole piece just reads of mega funds and giga corps throwing ridiculous cash for pay to win. Nothing new there. We can’t train more people? I didn’t know Universities were suddenly producing waaaay less talent and that intelligence fell off a cliff. Things have gone parabolic! It’s giga mega…
University enrolment is actually set to sharply decline. It's called the Demographic Cliff: https://www.highereddive.com/news/demographic-cliff-colleges...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, and I suspect the explanation is that these plays are done not to search for a true AGI, but to drive up hype (and 'the line').
The higher the line goes, the higher the expected value of return on investment. It’s a virtuous cycle based on a bet on all horses, but since the EV is so high for first mover advantage for AGI, it might be worth it to overleverage compared to the past for your top picks? These are still small sums for Zuckerberg to pay personally, let alone for Meta to pay. This is already priced in.
> but since the EV is so high for first mover advantage for AGI
is it? why? I cant see why this should be the case. where exactly do you think the "moat" for AGI will come from?