301–310 of 575 posts
We are in a time where the impact can be measured more quickly, so good for the engineers taking advantage of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is IMO a comical, absurd, Beeple NFT type situation, which should point us to roughly where we are in the bubble. But if he's getting real, non-returnable actual money from Meta on the basis of a back of envelope calculation for his own startup, from Meta's need to satiate Mark Zuckerberg's FOMO, then good for him. This bubble cannot burst soon enough, but I hope he gets to keep some of this; he deserves it simp…
Bubble might not burst, if we can improve productivity in every field even 0.5%, that’s massive.
Nightmare Future!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hot fucking take - but if these 100 (or whatever small number is being thrown around these days) elite researchers disappeared overnight, the world would go on and little of it would be noticed. New people in the field would catch up, and things would be up to speed quick enough. It is not a question of exquisitely rare intellect, but rather the opportunity and funding/resources to prosper.
You can say the same about any set of 100 people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a group of wealthy individuals who have bought in to the idea that the singularity is months away. My question is "how many months need to pass until they realize it isn't months away?" What, it used to be 2025? Then 2027? Now 2030? I know these are not all the same people but there are trends of to keep pushing it back. I guess Elon has been saying full self-driving is a year away since 2016 so maybe this…
> My question is "how many months need to pass until they realize it isn't months away?" It's going to persist until shareholders punish them for it. My guess is it's going to be some near-random-trigger, such as a little-known AI company declaring bankruptcy, but becoming widely reported. Suddenly, investing in AI with no roadmap to profitability will become unfashionable, budget cuts, down-rounds, bankruptcies and…
Telco capex was $100 billion at the peak of the IT bubble, give or take. There's going to be $400 billion investments in AI in 2025.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d forgo a lot of glory for $250M. I suspect I’m not rare in that.
I weep for humanity.
Hitmen get what, $5-50k? And that’s for murder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what you mean but if I was to invest I would have invested years ago in NVIDIA.
Given that $5k in nVidia in 2015 when their stock was trading at $0.75/share would be $1.1M today at $173.72/share, that's very principled of you to have the winning pick ready, and not do it.
One way to make sense of this specific case at least. - He's on track to becoming a top-tier AI researcher. Despite having only one year of a PhD under his belt, he already received two top awards as a first-author at major AI conferences [1]. Typically, it takes many more years of experience to do research that receives this level of recognition. Most PhDs never get there. - Molmo, the slate of open vision-language…
Wonder what their contracts look like. Are these people gonna be grinding their ass off at the Meta offices working crazy hours? Does Zucc have a strong vision, leadership, and management skills to actually push and enable these people to achieve maximum success? And if so, what does that form of success look like? So far the vision that Zucc has outlined has been rather underwhelming, but maybe the vision which he s…
You can just doodle away with whatever research interests you the most, there's no need to deliver a god mode AI to the great leader even if you had the ability to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think AI will be a winner-take-all scenario. If that is to happen, I think the following assumptions must hold: 1) The winner immediately becomes a monopoly 2) All investments are directed from competitors, to the winner 3) Research on AGI/ASI ceases I don't see how any of these would be viable. Right now there's an incremental model arms race, with no companies holding a secret sauce so powerful that they're…
Yeah, this is why I said "(most)". But regardless, I think it's pretty uncontroversial that not all companies currently pursuing AI will ultimately succeed. Some will give up because they aren't in the top few contenders, who will be the only ones that survive in the long run. So maybe the issue is more about staying in the top N, and being willing to pay tons to make sure that happens.
That's probably true, but at the moment the only thing that creates something resembling a moat is the fact that progress is rapid (i.e. the top players are ~6-12 months ahead of the already commoditized options, but the gap in capabilities is quite large): if progress plateaus at all, the barrier to be competitive with the top dogs is going to drop a lot, and anyone trying to extra value out of their position is going to attract a ton of competition even from new players.