Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that obvious? Even with effectively complete stagnation and just existing technology + limited RLVR, I can see how this could be trillion-dollars level useful.
Where is all the productivity ? Everyone says they became a 100x employee thanks to LLMs yet not one company has seen any out of the ordinary growth or profit besides AI hyped companies. What if the amount of slop generated counteracts the amount of productivity gained ? For every line of code it writes it also writes some BS paragraph in a business plan, a report, &c.
Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
181–190 of 192 posts
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
"...who is going to subscribe who hasnt already." I think there will be an increase in subscribers as people get more used to them. But there's probably also people like me who just dropped 2k on a new system to self host my own to customise the pipeline, and integrate it into my house without sending data offsite.
Nice, what did you settle on? I'm playing with qwen3:32b on an Asahi M1 currently, and it does more than enough for me, but might be tempted if there is a bigger model within reach.
Currently working on a memory system to help the model changes, so it's all a bit up in the air for now haha.
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if we include property tax, sales tax, SALT deduction cap changes, compliance costs, regulatory burdens, state and local taxes... higher. On that note, you have no evidence that economists focus solely on tax rates on the curve independently of the economy at large. By definition, the curve is determined from external factors and economic measurements, none of which currently resemble 2012. If the economy crash…
okay, believe what you want. i just hope you are pushing for SS+medicare cuts
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding "Alien Message", I don't find that story particularly convincing. I think it's muddled and contrived. The basic issue is that we have to deduce stuff about the world we live in, using resources from the world we live in. In the story, the data bandwidth is contrived to be insanely smaller than the compute bandwidth, but that's not realistic. In reality, we are surrounded by chaotic physical systems that ope…
> Regarding "Alien Message", I don't find that story particularly convincing. I think it's muddled and contrived. Well, yes. it's from Eliezer Yudkowsky. The kind of people who who generally find him persuasive, will do so. Those who don't find him convincing or even find him somewhat of a crank, like the other self-proclaimed "rationalists", will do do. "muddled" is correct, he lacks rigour in everything, but certai…
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
A country that issues its own currency cannot run out of money or be forced into default in that currency. What we call the national debt is the total of money the government has created and not yet taxed back. Those dollars are private savings in another form, not a burden that must one day be repaid. Creditors do not fund government spending; they hold safe interest-bearing assets created by it. The real risks to s…
> A country that issues its own currency cannot run out of money or be forced into default in that currency. What we call the national debt is the total of money the government has created and not yet taxed back. Those dollars are private savings in another form, not a burden that must one day be repaid. Richard Murphy is that you? Snark aside, this is just straight up MMT which you're presenting as gospel, but absol…
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#186Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regarding "Alien Message", I don't find that story particularly convincing. I think it's muddled and contrived. Well, yes. it's from Eliezer Yudkowsky. The kind of people who who generally find him persuasive, will do so. Those who don't find him convincing or even find him somewhat of a crank, like the other self-proclaimed "rationalists", will do do. "muddled" is correct, he lacks rigour in everything, but certai…
You're the guy who in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45517647 I demonstrated was a physics crank: unskilled and unaware of it, dismissing the Alcubierre metric as "fantasy, nigh nonsensical and self-contradictory", unlike actual physicists. And, when I presented the evidence that that's not what actual physicists say about it, you responded by heaping personal abuse on me. Perhaps you posted this comment later…
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not real spending, because the money was already put aside. We take more in SS taxes than we pay out - it's a net positive. It's sort of like looking at the IRS and saying "look how much it costs!"
Payroll taxes are supposed to cover Medicare and Social Security (along with some other programs), but they cover less than 2/3 of those costs. It’s not true that “the money was already put aside”, because retirees these days are getting about triple what they put in, and the ‘pot of money’ saved up to cover Social Security ‘promises’ is forecast to run out. There is an infinite number of ways to juggle the numbers,…
People have been saying that SS will run out since the 70s, at least. I've heard it all.
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eliezer’s short story “That Alien Message” providing a convincing argument that humans are cognitively limited, not data-limited, through the device of a fictional world where people think faster: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien... > Yes. There is. The theoretical limit is that every time you see 1 additional bit, it cannot be expected to eliminate more than half of the remaining hypothes…
It's not a strawman, it's a thought experiment: if the premise of AGI is that a superintelligence could do all these amazing things, what could it do today if it existed but only had its superintelligence? My suggestion is that even something a billion times more intelligent than a human being might not be able to cure cancer with the information it has available today. Yes it could build simulations and throw a lot…
But if you agree that with 10²⁸ more times more computational power we could almost surely cure cancer without gathering much more data, then you agree that we have enough empirical data and just need to analyze it better. We're sort of arguing about the details of what kinds of approaches to analyzing the data better would work best.
I'll continue that argument about details a bit more here. So far, even with merely human intelligence, hard computational problems like car crash simulation, protein folding, and mixed integer-linear programming (optimization) have continued to gain even more efficiency from algorithmic improvements than from hardware improvements.
According to our current understanding of complexity theory, we should expect this to continue to be the case. An enormous class of practically important problems are known to be NP-complete, so unless P = NP, they take exponential time: solving a problem of size N requires k**N steps. Hardware advances and bigger compute budgets allow us to do more steps, while algorithmic improvements reduce k.
To be concrete, let's say k = 1.02, we have a data center full of 4096 1-teraflops GPUs, and we can afford to wait a month (2.6 megaseconds) for an answer. So we can apply about 10²² operations to the problem, which lets us solve problems up to about size N = 2600. Now suppose we get more budget and build out 1000 such data centers, so we can apply 10²⁵ ops, but without improving our algorithms. This allows us to handle N = 2900.
But suppose that instead we improve the heuristics in our algorithm to reduce k from 1.02 to 1.01. Suddenly we can handle N = 5100, twice as big.
We can easily calculate how many data centers we would need to reach the same problem size without the more intelligent algorithm. It's about 6 × 10²¹ data centers.
For NP-complete problems, unless P = NP, brute-force computing power lets you solve logarithmically larger problems, while intelligence lets you solve linearly larger problems, equivalent to an exponentially larger amount of computation.
Re: Bank of England flags risk of 'sudden correction' in tech stocks inflated by AI
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like a lot of people aren't fully examining what AGI would mean for labor. As of right now labor exists separate from capital, which is to say the economy is made of workers, stuff and money. Workers get stuff, put labor into it and turn it into more valuable stuff, capital owns that stuff so they sell it to other workers (usually) and give their workers some portion of the increase in value. AGI would mean th…
You mean a catch 187