251–260 of 718 posts
The current commercialization isn't economically sustainable.
And if it were, and the result were like Elon and Scam Altman say it would destroy the economy. Not sure any country wants to lead the race to self destruction.
The winner in the long term will be the one that will deliver the best performance and low-memory ratio for local models. Anthropic, OpenAI and Mistral are just companies that are making money right now (still not profitable), but will lost their tractions and values in the long term. However, I am more appealing to see how OpenCode Go subscriptions will go in the future: cheaper than big techs, more tokens, and they…
Local models will never compete with large SOTA models, in the same way an iPhone doesn't compete with supercomputers doing nuclear simulations. They paths will differentiate and split. Probably SOTA models will eventually be locked down and only accessible to state actors because of how expensive they will be to run (already started with Mythos).
we do know however where evolution is at right now with our brains, but thats probably not comparable - yet the only thing I can see to make any kind of prediction at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if someone invents super intelligence, they can dominate new AI research, control global economies, fight much better, and all very quickly. After reading "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" I think this is not the correct take. If anyone creates ASI, it just means it's going to wipe everyone out, and it doesn't matter if China or the US do it first
It destroying us all is not a foregone conclusion
Commercialization is not enough. The US is built on financialization . Cultivating an ecosysyem of strong capital protections, wealth creation through extraction, and tax advantages for AI finance is what we should be looking for. Commercialzation may be a step towards that, but isn't the destination. We have to create a system where those with money can multiply it, not simple add to it.
Betting your entire country's future on usury seems like a terrible idea to me, but what do I know.
No, the US is _leading_ the AI race, but the race isn't over. What's the point of leading the race for 90% of it, if they're gonna slip on their own sweat and fall down by the end? In non metaphorical terms, what's the point of spending billions of dollars rushing to get the best AI tech at all costs, when the competition can distil your progress and catch up in 6-12 months while only spending 1% of what you spent. E…
> No, the US is _leading_ the AI race, but the race isn't over. When someone says their football team is winning in the first half, do you say, "Umm, no, they're leading, not winning!"
Anthropic, OpenAI and Google are the standouts, but the main question for me is, why is this a war? In their own context China has greatly benefitted from this. They shored up their gpu design and manufacturing expertise. If this really is a war, trump is kneecapping the country with his lawlessness and eroding America’s good will. If the world cannot trust China with their data and they cannot trust the U.S. to prov…
> the main question for me is, why is this a war? It's a war because the hinted promise behind the hype that the first organization to reach some as-yet-entirely-theoretical AGI that can bootstrap itself to godlike capabilities will then Install Planetary Overlord* and rule the world as near-deities themselves, with the rest of the (surviving) human race as their slaves. I think it's a nonsensical idea, but that's th…
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/super-pac-backed-by-openai-and-p...
I don't think so. From a nation state perspective, AI is a munition. Every advanced nation is going to have their own cyber division with their own AI hosted within its borders. Considering how xenophobic and belligerent the US is, nobody is going to want their national cyber defenses hosted in the US. On a personal level, I simply do not trust the US anymore. I won't host any of my personal data in a US company. I d…
The US is not xenophobic. That is ridiculous. Any time you say stuff like that, you discredit the things you say that actually make sense. I'm with you on the privacy aspect, but there are multiple dimensions of that which you're ignoring. I'd much prefer taking my chances in the US than in the EU, where they are constantly trying to push companies to weaken privacy.
It can happen in Europe too, but the full fall is not that close.
The winner in the long term will be the one that will deliver the best performance and low-memory ratio for local models. Anthropic, OpenAI and Mistral are just companies that are making money right now (still not profitable), but will lost their tractions and values in the long term. However, I am more appealing to see how OpenCode Go subscriptions will go in the future: cheaper than big techs, more tokens, and they…
Local models will never compete with large SOTA models, in the same way an iPhone doesn't compete with supercomputers doing nuclear simulations. They paths will differentiate and split. Probably SOTA models will eventually be locked down and only accessible to state actors because of how expensive they will be to run (already started with Mythos).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like a lot of rationalization to me. China is pursuing these because they cannot compete on the frontier. Yes, there is a possibility that all that compute is not needed, but it is a rather remote possibility, and there is no doubt that, given the choice, China would be pursuing frontier model building with closed, propietary-only offerings.
Forgive me if this is a naive assumption, but wouldn’t large language models be fundamentally different for a language that is largely symbols? Again, my understanding of Mandarin is limited if it exists at all.