181–190 of 303 posts
More or less every person owns a GPU (mobile) already. They use it for rendering your stupid website. In addition, many have desktop GPUs. Which they use for gaming. Miss me with your 1-per-person not-Graphics Processing Unit setup. Especially when a B300 can't run a whole lot on its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what I'm saying, and I don't know where you inferred that from. I'm saying that tech has changed the world in the way we experience it, for sure, but it has been driven by political choices, more that drive political choices itself if we look at the bigger picture.
Isn't that exactly one of the interesting tensions here? You original point is that at a macro level it's driven by the elite decision makers not technology. I think the point you are perhaps missing is how much of that is constrained by the distribution of power and how technology can change that distribution. I think there is no doubt that access to the internet and information ( and propaganda ) , and self-organis…
Maybe I am misremembering it.
That example alone feels enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_(venture_capital_firm...
And by an AI company:
This is supposed to lead to positive engagement and dispel the notion of an AI cartel, because AI is soooooooo democratized!! Surprising that Neal Stephenson participates in this advertisement.
This website has the distinction of being the first basically-just-content website I have ever encountered to break when web fonts are blocked (or otherwise fail to load). Other than the weird 5×5 colourful tile image thing near the top, all the content is in the document , but they go out of their way to break it in various baffling ways: ① if JS is disabled, it hides all the content behind a “Please enable JavaScri…
Probably lots of tracking behind the scenes requiring all the js
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Construction isn't using LLMs any time soon like that. We don't even send our files in structured data because everyone's playing nose goes for liability and sending pdfs
I know! And financials and actuaries aren't either. Excel, Python, R and don't know what we can use ducktape and spit for to keep together. But as the LEAN-example quite nicely shows: with the right scaffolding I am convinced the GPU World /could/ look rosy. An economic problem would be - how could the builder of a scaffold capture _some_ value without right away be copied. The fact that LLMs threw away every protect…
I can only assume the only realistic way to get all the federated data will be a ton of massivr vertical consolidation of industry by hubris laden tech execs crossing industry domains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A species isn't a thing that can be happy or not. Also the idea of a replacement rate of 1 equals rapidly going extinct is mathematically illiterate. Exponentials work both ways - in growth and decay - ie let's say the population halves every generation ~ 25 years - it would take nearly 1000 years to reach near zero - as half of half is a smaller absolute reduction each time.
I don't think I can do any better than you by asking the most advanced LLM to be as pedantic as possible whilst not addressing anything actually being said. Congratulations, I suppose?
ie a replacement rate of 1 isn't some immediate existential threat, and that making arguments like 'species aren't happy' is completely specious ( sic ).
If you want a wider argument - then the reality is the birth rate is dropping because when women have the choice ( via birth control and increased socio-economic independence ) they are largely choosing to have less children. So by definition, given it's a choice - women are happier.
The second bit is speculation on motive - which is why I didn't bother the first time - but in my view, those that push an argument that there is a fertility/species crisis ( using specious arguments like the above ) - who say women aren't really happy with their choice etc - is all about subjugating women to baby making machines to satisfy the ego of people like Musk. Whether the original poster has that motivation or has just fallen for the "species crisis" ( or even worse 'race' crisis ) rubbish - I have no idea - I didn't want to assume the worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very hard to disagree with the point that it will get more powerful, perhaps in uenxpected ways. I don't know that the average regular person is using this tech as a producer, and while it's hard not to consume it - I don't know if anybody consuming it really wants to. I'm in a bubble of people where we give it a lot more mindshare, but e.g my electrician is aware of the tech, knows what it does, and doesn't rea…
> I don't know if anybody consuming it really wants to. You don't know of people who ask LLMs questions? Or just chat with it for fun and to learn? Maybe your electrician isn't interested. A pharmacist and a nurse I talk to are. Virtually everybody I've talked to uses it to some degree or another. I think it'll soon replace Alexa/Siri for most people, as well as google search. That's pretty far from nobody.
If people use it to replace voice assistants or search engines, you can see how this new invention is not really adding anything you already hadn't.
AIs in general are very useful, but apart from the campaign they did to change everything's name into AI (also well known algorithms and "old" machine learning), if you look at all the possible applications, LLMs are possibly the least useful of them.
Especially if you take into account how much money they spent, and how much effort they put to shove it in your throat.
If a technology is convenient for people, you shouldn't need to insist to make people use it. If it is convenient, people will use it in a natural way.
> What if the world had one GPU per person? It already does, in the form of mobile phones. It's just that these GPUs are not very powerful _yet_. But the building blocks to enable offline agents on mobile phones are already in place. i.e. Android AI Core framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A species isn't a thing that can be happy or not. Also the idea of a replacement rate of 1 equals rapidly going extinct is mathematically illiterate. Exponentials work both ways - in growth and decay - ie let's say the population halves every generation ~ 25 years - it would take nearly 1000 years to reach near zero - as half of half is a smaller absolute reduction each time.
> it would take nearly 1000 years to reach near zero Depending on distribution, the rate might accelerate as it becomes difficult to find viable partners. You'd also experience civilisation collapse at a much earlier stage, as we've seen how COVID affected supply chains and created a new push for regional independence and de-globalisation.
Lower numbers of people in the world reduces the chances of that.
Birth rates are much easier to reverse than climate change - it's a really odd thing to focus on.
Area's of the world where birth rate is still high tend to be in poorly developed regions where human labour is required to survive.
However, in developed countries - the idea that we need the same or more people to maintain civilisation when the means of production is being increasingly automated doesn't make sense.
As an example ~100 years ago in Europe you were looking at nearly 50% of the population being involved in food production, whereas now it's about 5% - and that includes a 50% increase in the population to feed.
Note the EU is a net food exporter - even if it does import bananas.