121–130 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quality data can be created synthetically at an exponential rate as models improve No it can't? Every time the labs try this we see model collapse, e.g. shoving goblins into every conversation. And I have seen zero evidence that AI is accelerating materials science in any meaningful way, let alone photonic computing.
There's a lot of deluland posts about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quality data can be created synthetically at an exponential rate as models improve No it can't? Every time the labs try this we see model collapse, e.g. shoving goblins into every conversation. And I have seen zero evidence that AI is accelerating materials science in any meaningful way, let alone photonic computing.
> Every time the labs try this we see model collapse The latest studies demonstrate model collapse is not a given and synthetic data can be used just fine. The latest models are proof of that, they're all trained on large swathes of synthetic data. It can't be used as the -only- data source of course, but that's not how it is being used. This is an obvious conclusion, too, because there's no difference between synthe…
Which studies? [edit: I'll assume you mean these two given by @dorolow: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07515]
> It can't be used as the -only- data source of course, but that's not how it is being used
Right, so human data creation would also have to scale up exponentially, and that's not gonna happen.
> because there's no difference between synthetic data and the data people can create
I mean, that's obviously false, otherwise model collapse wouldn't exist. The difference is statistical, but it's there.
> It is accelerating how quickly researchers and engineers can do their jobs. > https://news.mit.edu/2026/ai-helps-design-new-materials-that...
That's pretty clearly a hype article, the headline even says "The CrysVCD tool developed at MIT COULD cut the huge amounts of time and money spent". I'm asking for empirical measurements of timelines, not hypotheticals.
> This is only the beginning, too... Look ahead a year or two.
Lol that excuse is getting really old
They are talking about slowing down the public facing AI development. Because then nation states can create a capabilities gap between them and the public. Why does nobody seem to be pointing out this obvious explanation? It explains why the “we need to race China” concern suddenly vanished in the discussion. The government can simply gag Sam, Dario, Musk on national security basis, getting them all behind the public…
All the worst outcomes involve taking this technology away from the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's an extremely hard problem, it's not completely unsolvable because there are a finite number of GPUs on the planet capable of doing frontier model development, and they use a lot of power. The vast majority of them could be tracked. China and the US could agree to joint monitoring and they could each verify what ~95% of the other's compute power was up to. A lab of researchers without compute isn't going to…
What a naive, ignorant comment. China is catching up fast on GPU fabrication. They're still a generation or two behind but they can just throw more hardware and electricity at the problem. This is not something that we could ever monitor effectively in a fascist state like China.
I said IF the US and China agree to joint monitoring, THEN we could verify how much compute existed and what it was being used for.
YES, China will catch up in chip production, but if each side allowed the other to track GPU production and deliveries, on the ground, it would be very hard for either player to have secret LLM training facilities capable of training frontier models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a naive, ignorant comment. China is catching up fast on GPU fabrication. They're still a generation or two behind but they can just throw more hardware and electricity at the problem. This is not something that we could ever monitor effectively in a fascist state like China.
? I said IF the US and China agree to joint monitoring, THEN we could verify how much compute existed and what it was being used for. YES, China will catch up in chip production, but if each side allowed the other to track GPU production and deliveries, on the ground, it would be very hard for either player to have secret LLM training facilities capable of training frontier models.
Whatever happened to Musk's plan for data centers in orbit? That seemed silly at the time. It offers a way to get out from under restrictions imposed by national governments, which might make it worthwhile.
A lot of people in this comments section seem to be against this, i genuinely don't get it? Why? Do you think the current state of affairs is GOOD? That if we let companies create a mind that is, AS OF TODAY, able to solve problems no human in history has solved, with no regulation, things will end up good for us? We need some sort of regulations, some sort of method to help ensure the thing we are creating ends up g…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture The fear is not that they will just slow down progress for all. It is that regulation will specifically burden competition. If you kill open-source training, ban Chinese models, crack down on self-hosting, grandfather OpenAI/Anthropic/Google into regulatory compliance while throwing the book at startups, etc. you wind up in the worst of all possible worlds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Fable doesn't add additional value in your workplace, it means you aren't being ambitious enough in how you integrate agents into your workstream. Yes, it's probably comparable to 4.8 if you are just using it to write code and put up a couple pull requests. That's not where things are now.
This is just "you're holding it wrong" with a little smooch of condescension. If only we plebeians could comprehend what magnificent works those who have ambitiously integrated agents into the workstream have wrought!
They are talking about slowing down the public facing AI development. Because then nation states can create a capabilities gap between them and the public. Why does nobody seem to be pointing out this obvious explanation? It explains why the “we need to race China” concern suddenly vanished in the discussion. The government can simply gag Sam, Dario, Musk on national security basis, getting them all behind the public…
Yep, the cost of DDR5 skyrocketed to keep Mr & Mrs open source from parallel developing their own at home solution. Because Governments can't be priced out of the market. China can't be priced out. VC's want open source locked out of the running if possible. I also don't doubt that the models that are released publicly are somewhat handicapped versions of whatever the government get access to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just "you're holding it wrong" with a little smooch of condescension. If only we plebeians could comprehend what magnificent works those who have ambitiously integrated agents into the workstream have wrought!
I mean it's very easy to comprehend and you don't need me for it. Just download claude code or codex and ask it to give suggestions about where to integrate agents into your workstream.