121–130 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you earn 6 times more than your friend who is a bus driver, you live in a place that has an unusually high income disparity for Europe.
Tech worker here, I just looked at my total comp, and it's about 4.5x that of a local bus driver. L+1s are probably getting close to 6x.
"We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. That said, superintelligence will raise novel safety concerns. We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Still, we believe that building a free society requires that we aim to empower people as much as possible."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are not going to fundamentally reshape society. Productivity will go up a couple percent, the profits from that productivity will go to the richest people. Some jobs will be made redundant, some new jobs will be created. That's it. Same as it ever was.
That's your opinion. It may be correct but it's not embarrassing for a CEO to have different opinion that you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here of people seeing greed only in those with more income than them but never in themselves when they accept those generous big-tech, big-finance, big-ad-tech, big-4, big-pharma compensation packages from the evil robber barons they claim to hate. If you hate them so much why are you taking their blood money? Also, there is no class solidarity the way you imagine it in your fantas…
The owner of IKEA is literally in the same class as Zuck lmao what are you even on about
IKEA is currently owned by a series of foundations.
On account of Ingvar Kamprad being dead, they're not really in the same class.
Before Ingvar Kamprad passed away, his estimated worth was $42.5B -- $58.7B.
Compared, Zuck's estimated worth is $221.2B -- $247B.
“As recently as 200 years ago, 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Advances in technology have steadily freed much of humanity to focus less on subsistence and more on the pursuits we choose” More people today are dying from starvation than people existed on earth 200 years ago. Celebrating our achievements in making shareholders rich is one thing, but to take credit for freeing the people. Yikes. Mar…
What has intelligence (let alone superintelligence) or lack of, got to do with the last two. All these discussions about AGI seems to have reduced what it means to be a human being to a token generator.
Facebook / Meta and Mark in particular are an amazing case of someone who is, at least at this point, incapable of learning from past mistakes, or even recognizing the mistakes they have made and are continuing to make. Facebook's mission of "connecting the world" turned out to be the absolute worst thing anyone should ever try to do. Humans are social creatures, yes, but every connection we make costs energy to main…
The core problem is gamification of social interaction. The 'Like' button and everything like it for things people say or show is hands down the worst thing to happen on the internet. Everywhere they can, people whore for karma (unless they spend a lot of mental effort to fight back that urge). How primitive the related moderation systems are directly affects how much primitive shit gets rewarded and alas, most moderation systems are ridiculously primitive.
So, dopamine hits for saying primitive shit.
> We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Here we go, predictably pulling the oldest trick in the book, just two weeks after it was reported [1] that the Superintelligence leadership was discussing moving to closed source for their best models, not for any risk mitigation reason, but for competitive reasons. Also, > As recently as 200 years ago, 90% of p…
> Here we go, predictably pulling the oldest trick in the book, just two weeks after it was reported [1] that the Superintelligence leadership was discussing moving to closed source for their best models, not for any risk mitigation reason, but for competitive reasons. That's not pulling a trick, that's doing precisely what Zuck said he would do. In April 2024 Zuck on Dwarkesh said that models are a commodity right n…
> Open Source AI is the Path Forward.
> Meta is committed to open source AI. I’ll outline why I believe open source is the best development stack for you, why open sourcing Llama is good for Meta, and why open source AI is good for the world and therefore a platform that will be around for the long term.
> We need to control our own destiny and not get locked into a closed vendor.
> We need to protect our data.
> We want to invest in the ecosystem that’s going to be the standard for the long term.
> There is an ongoing debate about the safety of open source AI models, and my view is that open source AI will be safer than the alternatives.
> I think it will be better to live in a world where AI is widely deployed so that larger actors can check the power of smaller bad actors [...] As long as everyone has access to similar generations of models – which open source promotes – then governments and institutions with more compute resources will be able to check bad actors with less compute.
> The bottom line is that open source AI represents the world’s best shot at harnessing this technology to create the greatest economic opportunity and security for everyone.
> I hope you’ll join us on this journey to bring the benefits of AI to everyone in the world.
> Mark Zuckerberg
Pulling the "Closed source for safety" card, once it makes economic sense for you, after having clearly outlined why you think open source is safer, and how you are "committed" to it "for the long term" and for the "good for the world", is mainly where my criticism is coming from. If he was upfront in the new blog post about closing source for competitive reason, I would still find it a distasteful bait and switch but much less so than trying to just put the safety sticker on it after having (correctly) trashed others for doing so.
https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/open-source-ai-is-the-path...
This stuff is naive. There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity, and they will fight to preserve it unless you give them an equivalent station in the 'new world'. But you will still need to sustain ex-workers if they can't get normal jobs, and those same people at the top will not tolerate the taxes required to sustain a basic level of living for much wider population. They already can't tol…
>There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity Apart form you of course, so I'm sure you'd be ok if the government would tax your higher than average tech wage till your take home pay would match that of a train conductor's or bus driver's, like in Western Europe, and therefore fix the wage gap you hate so much. Would you like that solution? Caption this: It's only a problem when the people who…