Idiocy becomes rampant!
Just like real life!
31–40 of 151 posts
Idiocy becomes rampant!
Just like real life!
> Reading everything becomes the default. At a cent per document, a model can read every paper I love how in our day "reading everything" means "the computer reads it for me". I expect soon the computer will be able to go on bicycle rides, and spend time with my wife.
Jevons Paradox [1] > when technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource's use lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Las Vegas replaced the expensive incandescent lighting on the strip with cheaper to run LED equivalents. But the costs didn't come down because they were able to add more lights and larger dis…
> Reading everything becomes the default. At a cent per document, a model can read every paper I love how in our day "reading everything" means "the computer reads it for me". I expect soon the computer will be able to go on bicycle rides, and spend time with my wife.
Hasn't the computer already been spending time with your wife?
Sure you can speed things up with parallel work under subagents, but as with parallelizing traditional computational tasks, there are diminishing gains.
I keep hearing people saying just change the way you work to trust long-running agents and multi-task more, because they’re too slow to work with interactively for many use cases. I think that’s painful in a world where we expect humans to still heavily guide and interact with agents for their day-to-day work.
> Reading everything becomes the default. At a cent per document, a model can read every paper I love how in our day "reading everything" means "the computer reads it for me". I expect soon the computer will be able to go on bicycle rides, and spend time with my wife.
Hasn't the computer already been spending time with your wife?
Personally I still see LLMs as very advanced search engines which lack intelligence. To me it seems that the cost of getting data is reduced by LLMs, not the cost of intelligence. I mean: we tell the model what we want to achieve, and the model responds with the right data in de form of code in seconds. That's why 'stackoverflow programmers' will have a hard time competing with LLMs but engineers are still needed for…
It's not different. The delusion humans have is that intelligence is special and magical. It's not. It's just nature's prediction machine. A very fancy version to be sure. But not qualitatively different .
All statements that "oh but it'll never be able to do that" will prove false.
I think speed is actually going to be a bigger factor than cost. Even projects where “money is no object” often hit a wall with LLM response times. Sure you can speed things up with parallel work under subagents, but as with parallelizing traditional computational tasks, there are diminishing gains. I keep hearing people saying just change the way you work to trust long-running agents and multi-task more, because the…
What's especially bewildering to me is that translated back to raw bandwidth, even 15000 tok/sec is just like what, 75 KB/s? Extremely meager amounts of data, moving mountains.
It's already kinda funny seeing LLMs throw out effort estimates in wall time terms. It's always some "hours, days, weeks" tier thing, when in reality, it's gone and done in minutes.
I've been working with the chinese open models for 4 months. They are more than capable for a tiny fraction of the cost of the frontier ones. And yet they also continue to get significantly better and (Deepseek's recent price increase aside) cheaper. Its hard to fathom how the truly frontier stuff will be able to compete long-term.
And why won’t the frontier models continue to become better? The open models are getting better but so are the frontier models. The frontier models might remain in a constant race to remain ahead