441–450 of 489 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the strategy when one does die? It’s just left in place until it’s worth it to pull the entire rack?
No. When a single GPU fails it makes the whole 8-GPU server useless so it needs to be swapped promptly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing in capitalism suggests that consumers have to be human. In fact, the whole enshittification trend suggests that traditional consumers are less economically relevant than they've ever been.
Actually you made me think of a fun scenario. A robot, who I will name Robort, over time becomes, say, 1/10th the price of human labor. But they do 10x the work quality and work 10x longer. In that scenario, you could pay them the same wage but produce significantly more economic value. The robot, who won’t care about material possessions or luxuries, could make purchases on behalf of a human - and that human, overwo…
Children (under the age of 18) are less productive and spend significantly less time doing anything that could be considered work and they don't pay their parents in any significant capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's only one problem with a race to superintelligence, and that's that nobody has evidence that mere intelligence is coming, much less superintelligence. (There are a thousand more problems, but none of them matter until that first one is overcome.)
Today's AI does exhibit some intelligence, period. It is absurd to claim that an intelligent-looking entity doesn't have intelligence, only because we might not be able to determine which part of the entity has one. The superintelligence is an entirely different problem though because there is no clear path from intelligence to so-called superintelligence, everything has been just a speculation so far.
Is it? I am pretty sure biology will solve good old "are viruses alive?" sooner than we agree on definition of intelligence. "Chinese Room" is at least 40 years old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, at the price you paid to retrieve that memory, is it a viable business model?
I downloaded 2GiB of data and let a script run for 56 hours. Besides a bit of my time, which I found to be enjoyable, it didn't cost me anything. Maybe you could argue it cost some electricity, but... In reality, it meant my computer, which runs 24/7 pulling ~185W, was running at ~300W for 56 hours... Thusly.. 300 - 185 = 115W * 56H = 6.44kWh @ $0.13 per kWh = $0.85 + tax. So... Yes, it was very much worth $0.85 to m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A pillar of the author's argument is that > Chinese will not pull back on AI investment, and because of their advantages in robotics and energy infrastructure, they don't have to. > The gap matters because AI's value capture depends on having the energy and hardware to deploy frontier models in the physical world. I understand energy infrastructure because of power-hungry GPUs and ASICs, but I was wondering about the…
Early day for robotics and AI still. But for a superpower, the potential for (more) autonomous weapons in that intersection is something that (unfortunately) cannot be ignored.
It's not tho. We've been at it for about 70 years now. Returns have been diminishing exponentially if you look at the amounts invested and we still have bumbling contraptions that are useful in very narrow and contrived use cases.
The whole hype is based on wishful/magical thinking. The booster arguments are invariably about some idea in their minds that has no correspondent in the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today's AI does exhibit some intelligence, period. It is absurd to claim that an intelligent-looking entity doesn't have intelligence, only because we might not be able to determine which part of the entity has one. The superintelligence is an entirely different problem though because there is no clear path from intelligence to so-called superintelligence, everything has been just a speculation so far.
> It is absurd to claim that an intelligent-looking entity doesn't have intelligence Is it? I am pretty sure biology will solve good old "are viruses alive?" sooner than we agree on definition of intelligence. "Chinese Room" is at least 40 years old.
Practically speaking, the inherentness of intelligence doesn't really matter because both intelligent-looking entity and provably intelligent entity are capable for societal disruptions anyway. I partly dislike the Chinese Room argument for this reason; it facilitates useless discussions in most cases.
The singularity. I don't think most authors of articles like these understand what the AI build up is about, they think it's another fad tool.
There is no winning scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today's AI does exhibit some intelligence, period. It is absurd to claim that an intelligent-looking entity doesn't have intelligence, only because we might not be able to determine which part of the entity has one. The superintelligence is an entirely different problem though because there is no clear path from intelligence to so-called superintelligence, everything has been just a speculation so far.
Clever Hans would like a word.
The singularity. I don't think most authors of articles like these understand what the AI build up is about, they think it's another fad tool.
It is totally irrational: let's invest in AI companies, on the off chance that Singularity happens and makes money and entire economics system obsolete. There is no winning scenario.
The singularity. I don't think most authors of articles like these understand what the AI build up is about, they think it's another fad tool.
You might want to listen to what people besides Sam Altman and Ray Kurweil say, at least once in a while.