221–230 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger elephant in the room is that LLMs will never be AGI, even by the purely economic definition many LLM companies use.
There are two big innovations required to achieve inexpensive AGI. LLMs will accelerate discovery and development of Innovation 1, for insanely expensive AGI. Innovation 1 will accelerate discovery and development of Innovation 2 which will make it too cheap to meter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well to make things worse I was pretty convinced those were faked numbers to push the TilTok ban forward. I really doubt Meta and Google are each taking in this much per user. But my point is more that even if it were that high, ChatGPT isn't going to capture all the engagement. And even then I don't know whether $300 is much particularly after subtracting operating overhead. I'm just saying I have trouble believing…
Everything devolves into ADs eventually. Why would productized LLMs be any different?
My point is that someone starting an airline can't get away with hopes and dreams about making bank on ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the market would rather watch ads no, netflix wants more income, and by having a product be ad supported, they can try to earn more. The "market" is not a person, and doesn't have "wants".
From the article: > Netflix has more than doubled the number of people watching its ad-supported tier over the last year. At its upfront presentation for advertisers on Wednesday, the company revealed that the $7.99 per month plan now reaches more than 94 million users around the world each month – a big increase from the 40 million it reported in May 2024 and the 70 million it revealed last November. 1/3 of Netflix…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We haven't done any advertising product yet. I kind of...I mean, I'm not totally against it. I can point to areas where I like ads. I think ads on Instagram, kinda cool. I bought a bunch of stuff from them. But I am, like, I think it'd be very hard to…I mean, take a lot of care to get right." https://mashable.com/article/openai-ceo-sam-altman-open-to-a...
> Altman has said numerous times that none of the subscriptions make money currently For this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > Netflix has more than doubled the number of people watching its ad-supported tier over the last year. At its upfront presentation for advertisers on Wednesday, the company revealed that the $7.99 per month plan now reaches more than 94 million users around the world each month – a big increase from the 40 million it reported in May 2024 and the 70 million it revealed last November. 1/3 of Netflix…
A lot of "netflix users" are middle and high school age kids in third world countries using a borrowed account. User context matters a lot. If someone's friends-friends-friends uncle changes their password, it's no surprise those "netflix users" would switch to an ad-supported model. It's possible but unlikely the 12 year old kid watching anime on a shared/borderline stolen account has the resources necessary to buy…
I don't think the difference for a 12yo is $7.99 for standard with ads vs $17.99 for standard.
It's $0 vs any non-zero dollar amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As I understand them, LLMs right now don’t understand concepts. In my uninformed opinion it feels like there's probably some meaningful learned representation of at least common or basic concepts. It just seems like the easiest way for LLMs to perform as well as they do.
Humans assume that being able to produce meaningful language is indicative of intelligence, because the only way to do this until LLMs was through human intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger elephant in the room is that LLMs will never be AGI, even by the purely economic definition many LLM companies use.
There are two big innovations required to achieve inexpensive AGI. LLMs will accelerate discovery and development of Innovation 1, for insanely expensive AGI. Innovation 1 will accelerate discovery and development of Innovation 2 which will make it too cheap to meter.
Can you expand on this more? As far as I'm aware LLMs have yet to invent anything novel.
At best they may have inferred one response of many that, when tested by humans, may have proven out. I'm not aware of a specific example of even that, but it is at least possible where claims that LLMs will "cure cancer" seem plainly false (I'm not trying to put those words in your mouth, just using an example for my point).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger elephant in the room is that LLMs will never be AGI, even by the purely economic definition many LLM companies use.
I've been saying this for years now. LLMs are _not_ the right methodology to get to AGI. My friends who were drinking the kool-aid are only recently coming around to "hey, this might not get us AGI". But sometimes it feels like I'm the lone voice in a bubble where people are convinced AGI is just around the corner. I'm wondering if it's because people are susceptible to the marketing, or are just doing some type of '…
In my experience it was a combination of the hype and an overconfidence in the person's understanding of how LLMs work and what AGI actually means. To be fair, AGI definitions are all over the place and LLMs were rarely described in detail beyond "its AI that read the whole internet and sounds like a human."
I generally turn off memory completely. I want to have exact control over the inputs. To be honest, I would strip all the system prompts, training, etc, in favor of one I wrote myself.
Isn't that what APIs are for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans assume that being able to produce meaningful language is indicative of intelligence, because the only way to do this until LLMs was through human intelligence.
Yep. Although the average human also considered proficiency in mathematics to be indicative of intelligence until we invented the pocket calculator, so maybe we're just not smart enough to define what intelligence is.