I aint even gonna open source it but someone will.
The Flat Curve Society
21–30 of 31 posts
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#22If the most expensive models yet to come will end up behind bars by default, what is the economic incentive to make them in the first place?
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#23If the most expensive models yet to come will end up behind bars by default, what is the economic incentive to make them in the first place?
National Security! Selling to the government. Getting tax dollars for something the public will not be able to evaluate. All deals are behind closed doors. Undisturbed grift for all involved.
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#24Is this a troll
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#25GPT-2 was already extremely dangerous.
So was the computational capabilities of Playstation 2. It could be used to simulate nuclear weapons, I heard.
This article, just in the first paragraph, seems fueled by an episode of AI psychosis.
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#26I guess what Steve is saying is that we don't need all of these data centers then! In his picture he paints a bleak world where, just outside, pollution seems to be the norm. Maybe this is a new rendition of Animal Farm he's working on?
I do agree with him, though... I don't think most companies will want to send their code to OAI, Anthropic or Google either. Not because they can't afford it or are worried about that being stolen (Steve: the point is rarely the code, it's the customer base) but more because they're starting to wake up to the snake oil AI market. Always has been and always will be when you're hocking a subjective and non-deterministic product! We've seen this time and time again within the cyber security space and, well look at that, now the problem space for AI has achieved global charlatanism!
Does it have value? For sure. It does. But it's also not "nuclear weapons" level. OAI was just putting out roulette porn last week yet now we're here? This is all another "hacking tool" strawman that the USG loves to run around with like Chicken Little.
Finally, speaking of the USG. Those in power absolutely love this. Why? Because the USG has always destroyed what could have been great platforms by scope creeping them into mediocrity. Look at the F-35 (JSF). It a mediocre airframe because it had very different requirements for every branch of the military. Just the same way LLMs are not useful for 80% of the enterprise. Nobody gives two shits about a chatbot that can write a haiku. They want a platform that can solve specific problems. Do we really think the enterprise is dumb enough to think that they should redirect a significant spend into LLMs just to be in the exact same position as their competitor? Rewind the clock and start with SLMs and you'd see a much more palatable AI market right now. But instead we're trying to hit an impossible target through brute force and raw dollars. Not through strategic tact but wasteful and egregious weaponization of money that's flowing to some of the most narcissistic people on the face of the earth.
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#27I miss the old Steve Yegge that actually knew how to write coherently. AI psychosis is apparently a hell of a drug... this is pages and pages of complete dreck.
Why is it dreck? Other than being predictions so probably wrong in that sense? I do disagree with parts of it, but dreck?
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#28Nuclear weapons… somewhat complicated to build and complicated to maintain, mass-produce, transport, smuggle, hide, and use. Models on the other hand are just software. You can download Fable / Mythos / Praxia / Concordicon and hide a copy in your shoe. You can make two copies even! One per shoe! We have lived through decades now of the glorious open source revolution so it’s easy to forget about a different time, in…
It then raises a question, which of these two is really the precious thing. (Although there could be a 3rd thing, a memoization of some shortcuts, like tautologies in logic.)
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#29I found a lot of interesting, if speculative, thoughts in the article, but... > Superhuman means unverifiable is not true for at least large classes of problems. The recent solution of the "unit distance" problem comes to mind, or any future AI-solved math problem that was beyond the capabilities of humans. You can tell it's superhuman (it's doing things humans can't) and you can easily verify its results are correct…
Re: The Flat Curve Society
#30I disagree with Steve Yegge's assessment that the curve is close to leveling off. It's not the models, it's the harnesses and the result automation possibilities that are the true unlock. LLMs stabilizing around a current local maximum is actually not much of a big deal. If we just use the models we have today there is so much more unlock available. We have only just begun our ascent up the hockey stick and the most…
This. And we don't even need LLMs. Orchestrated SLMs that are actually good at their topical areas of training (imagine that) are more in-tune with what the enterprise wants.
> The real danger is how big of a gap will exist once the curve does level off.
I think we've seen that is has. Parlor tricks like what Anthropic is pulling with Fable / Mythos is ultimately a cheat. Basically what you describe up top: the harnesses and underlying automation built in - and that's exactly what Anthropic didn't tell people Fable was, yet it is. And here we are. Is Fable amazing without Claude Code under the covers? Probably not much outside Opus 4.8. The models themselves aren't accelerating as fast as they were years ago, but the marketing clankers have kicked in and are pushing out benchmarks and numbers and all the things, but in reality they're fractions of a point improved. And they still get the obvious things wrong, even when you're paying the inflated high prices. I just can't wait until Anthropic tells everyone that API access to a model is "dangerous", because you know damn well that's coming. There's no moat unless they keep digging. And they're digging right now, that's very clear.