161–170 of 567 posts
I'm sure some people will have issue with my phrasing but, honest question: Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? I guess nuclear weapons might be the best example though research doesn't seem have to actually "stopped" as much as gone underground and we still have country trying to climb that ladder. But I don't know how relevant that is to LLMs/AI. It almost f…
This is whole a slippery slope. Always building on assumption of infinite exponential growth. But every exponential is at a certain point a sigmoid.
> But every exponential is at a certain point a sigmoid. strongly, no . its just hard to distinguish them. for example, radioactive decay. cmon
I found the AI 2027 paper to be overly optimistic, but not wholly fantastical. This paper feels wildly speculative, and relies on premises I am not confident even pass surface reasoning. Even under optimistic conditions, we are not going to see robots "capable of 95% of all cognitive and physical tasks" by 2035. Nor do I think a 74% unemployment rate is even remotely possible. Economic collapse would implode AI devel…
If I took you back to 2020 and said in a little over 5 years there will basically be no human coders writing code anymore you'd almost certainly not believe me. And similar things can be said about many technologies in recent history – cars replacing the horse, first flight to man on the moon, even the creation of early internet to its mass adoption. You're talking generally a decade or 2 for society to completely ch…
I'm sure some people will have issue with my phrasing but, honest question: Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? I guess nuclear weapons might be the best example though research doesn't seem have to actually "stopped" as much as gone underground and we still have country trying to climb that ladder. But I don't know how relevant that is to LLMs/AI. It almost f…
[flagged]
This is from the "AI 2027"[1] people. [1] https://ai-2027.com/
I'm eagerly awaiting "AI 2100" from the same people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All news is influenced by what’s popular social media these days. And that becomes part of what people talk about through the grapevine. But no doubt there’s plenty of organic NIMBYism, anti tech growth stuff, and run of the mill fear of change and loss of control as society grows more abstract/centralized.
Applying the term NIMBYism to anti-AI and anti-DC sentiment is a gross abuse of terminology. Datacenters don't need to be in anybody's residential neighborhood.
Most industrial development face local protests like this and it's often has large crossover with those NIMBY who resist stuff like housing developments, and show up at town/city councils.
I found the AI 2027 paper to be overly optimistic, but not wholly fantastical. This paper feels wildly speculative, and relies on premises I am not confident even pass surface reasoning. Even under optimistic conditions, we are not going to see robots "capable of 95% of all cognitive and physical tasks" by 2035. Nor do I think a 74% unemployment rate is even remotely possible. Economic collapse would implode AI devel…
> Nor do I think a 74% unemployment rate is even remotely possible 250 years of constant automation has never produced large scale unemployment, despite obsoleting everyone's jobs several times over.
“I’ve been pulling my sled across this lake for 50 winters even when the temperature went above freezing. Never fell through!”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a just so story. The main issue today is the lack of democracy in the country and the use of technology to surveil and govern a restive population as the government has less and less legitimacy. The narrative you are telling is the heroic tale of computing and the internet c. 1990-2010. Yasha Levine wrote about how this narrative was preceded by a forgotten one where MIT students protested because the compute…
Yes, and RMS was correct in his Right to Read and so many other things - we're seeing the slow death of the never-enshrined-in-law right to compute. Luckily open-source is big enough to slow this down; we should all be pretty amazed and appreciative that there even are open-weights models at all, out there, because it is a profoundly democratizing thing.
thank, mr 习
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems way more accurate. Up until early 2026. Though it has bizzare fixation on geopolitics and China which it severely understimated. It's pretty obvious that China is going to outinnovate and outcompute US companies quite soon. Even if just because they care about higher education, providing enough electricity and letting smart people do smart things instead of randomly muzzling them with bans and export contr…
Hm, China is also beginning to invoke export controls to restrict homegrown models: https://www.reuters.com/world/beijing-is-looking-curbing-ove...
The whole article is kind of ridiculous of course, and is also heavily fixated on OpenBrain, whatever that is.
I also wonder about the economics of running an AI lab attached to an existing large tech company (such as Meta or Tencent) instead of a dedicated company like OpenAI. It's starting to seem like it's not possible to charge enough for current-gen AI usage, with current-gen inference technology, in order to turn a profit, i.e. nobody is able or willing to pay at least marginal cost for tokens.