> I doubt that OpenAI has a realistic path to preventing or even detecting distealing outside of simply not releasing models. Couldn't they just start hiding the thinking portion? It would be easy for them to do this. Currently, they already provide one sentence summaries for each step of the thinking I think users would be fine or at least stay if it were changed to provide only that.
S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
131–140 of 430 posts
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#132> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…
What is even the possible usage of AI for national security? Generating pictures of kittens riding nuclear weapons to the very end like in Dr Strangelove?
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#133Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#134> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…
You can choose to be somewhat ignorant of the current state in AI, about which I could also agree that at certain moments it appears totally overhyped, but the reality is that there hasn't been a bigger technology breakthrough probably in the last ~30 years. This is not "just" machine learning because we have never been able to do things which we are today and this is not only the result of better hardware. Better ha…
It is worth noting that the first "LLM" you referring to was only 300M parameters, but even then the amount of training required (at the time) was such that training a model like that outside of a big tech company was infeasible. Obviously now we have models that are in the hundreds of billions / trillions of parameters. The ability to train these models is directly a result of better / more hardware being applied to the problem as well as the Transformer architecture specifically designed to better conform with parallel computation at scale.
The first GPT model came out ~ 8 years ago. I recall when GPT-2 came out they initially didn't want to release the weights out of concern for what the model could be used for, looking back now that's kind of amusing. However, fundamentally, all these models are the same setup as what was used then, decoder based Transformers. They are just substantially larger, trained on substantially more data, trained with substantially more hardware.
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#135I hope it gets tested further.
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#136I found the discussion around inference scaling with the 'Wait' hack so surreal. The fact such an ingeniously simple method can impact performance makes me wonder how many low-hanging fruit we're still missing. So weird to think that improvements on a branch of computer science is boiling down to conjuring the right incantation words, how you even change your mindset to start thinking this way?
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#137I found the discussion around inference scaling with the 'Wait' hack so surreal. The fact such an ingeniously simple method can impact performance makes me wonder how many low-hanging fruit we're still missing. So weird to think that improvements on a branch of computer science is boiling down to conjuring the right incantation words, how you even change your mindset to start thinking this way?
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this a lot, but what the hell. It's still computer chips. They depreciate. Short supply won't last forever. Hell, GPUs burn out. It seems like using ice sculptures as collateral, and then spring comes.
If so wouldn’t it be the first time in history when more processing power is not used? In my experience CPU/GPU power is used up as much as possible. Increased efficiency just leads to more demand.
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#139> having 10,000 H100s just means that you can do 625 times more experiments than s1 did I think the ball is very much in their court to demonstrate they actually are using their massive compute in such a productive fashion. My BigTech experience would tend to suggest that frugality went out the window the day the valuation took off, and they are in fact just burning compute for little gain, because why not...
This is pure speculation on my part but I think at some point a company's valuation became tied to how big their compute is so everybody jumped on the bandwagon.
Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?
#140I found the discussion around inference scaling with the 'Wait' hack so surreal. The fact such an ingeniously simple method can impact performance makes me wonder how many low-hanging fruit we're still missing. So weird to think that improvements on a branch of computer science is boiling down to conjuring the right incantation words, how you even change your mindset to start thinking this way?