251–260 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the alternative scenario to a crash? As I understand it, for AI companies to not crash, they have to end up putting us all out of jobs which will end up with us becoming slaves/serfs.
Why keep slaves or serfs if AI can do every job better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please stop being coy and intentionally obtuse? Just have a discussion in good faith, I'm so beyond sick of this kind of rhetoric. Yes, AI training uses human data and a lot of it was not compensated. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the thing this thread is about. Distilling models costs less money than a really procuring quality data and training a model yourself. If you disagree, debate that .
> But that has absolutely nothing to do with the thing this thread is about. That's how this thread started: >>>> That's the difference between innovating and copying/distilling someone else's innovation. How is distillation by one party okay but distillation by another not okay, even though in the second case the other party is paying the asking fees?
> If the US companies need trillions to barely beat Chinese companies spending billions, despite a multi year head start...
Because they're talking about the cost difference of distilled model development and ground-up trained model development.
And second, the answer is that OpenAI and Anthropic had to do all the research into how to train models. Then they had to acquire all the data, curate and filter it. Then they had to design all the ways to iterate on training and antagonize it to be better - because there's not actually an enormous corpus of aligned, human stream-of-thought data. Then over half a decade they've been refining these methods.
There's no way you don't understand that if it was not easier and cheaper to distill a model, the institutions in question would be training their own models from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the thing about debt, though: If your debt is denominated in your own sovereign currency, you can just print more when you run out of money.
Which doesn't get you more wealth. It just makes the currency worth less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is if large banks fail they take everyone else with them. We should have dealt with this in 2009, but for some reason it didn't happen. But money talks, I guess.
You should really define “everyone else”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please stop being coy and intentionally obtuse? Just have a discussion in good faith, I'm so beyond sick of this kind of rhetoric. Yes, AI training uses human data and a lot of it was not compensated. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the thing this thread is about. Distilling models costs less money than a really procuring quality data and training a model yourself. If you disagree, debate that .
> But that has absolutely nothing to do with the thing this thread is about. That's how this thread started: >>>> That's the difference between innovating and copying/distilling someone else's innovation. How is distillation by one party okay but distillation by another not okay, even though in the second case the other party is paying the asking fees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes more computing power, and money, to pay for training an LLM, compared to distilling an LLM that someone else has already trained. That's the economic difference.
> It takes more computing power, and money, to pay for training an LLM, compared to distilling an LLM that someone else has already trained. And that is still less money than it took to create that data in the first place, which the AI companies then gladly took to use for training.
This is probably the last reply I'll make to you. I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself. Whether you're just not getting it, or refusing to get it, either way it's starting to feel like a waste of time to try to rephrase the same thing again and again. Please read more carefully in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the alternative scenario to a crash? As I understand it, for AI companies to not crash, they have to end up putting us all out of jobs which will end up with us becoming slaves/serfs.
Why keep slaves or serfs if AI can do every job better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should really define “everyone else”.
Everyone else is literally everyone else. It doesn't matter what you have or what you do for a living, the collapse of the financial system is going to affect you negatively.
Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because AI is "too big to fail".
Wild that we all lived exactly the same way before AI Really changed so little in my life. I just use chatgpt instead of Google search now It's being marketed as some ground breaking revolutionary change when all it is is a better widget Remove it and the worst that will happen is that I'll go back to writing my emails and my code by hand - something I've done for the last 20 years anyway