51–60 of 65 posts
> Liang Wenfeng is a very rare person in China's AI industry who has abilities in “strong infrastructure engineering, model research, and also resource mobilization”, and “can make accurate high-level judgments, and can also be stronger than a frontline researcher in the technical details”. He has a “terrifying ability to learn” and at the same time is “less like a boss and more like a geek”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have to disagree there - the enshittification of nearly everything is 100% attributable to the seductive nature of rent seeking (more specifically, trying to gouge ever more in recurring revenue from people who you try to ensure have no other options). even companies who have innovative products and positive revenue streams have gone down that road.
I mean, why do you think they are rent seeking in the first place? (Hint: to make a profit and deliver profits to shareholders and investors)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have to disagree there - the enshittification of nearly everything is 100% attributable to the seductive nature of rent seeking (more specifically, trying to gouge ever more in recurring revenue from people who you try to ensure have no other options). even companies who have innovative products and positive revenue streams have gone down that road.
I mean, why do you think they are rent seeking in the first place? (Hint: to make a profit and deliver profits to shareholders and investors)
This is only part of the reason. It's really to signal that they can provide ever-increasing value. This year's 5% stock price increase cannot preclude next year's 5% stock price increase. It should be obvious this can't go on forever but it seems investors today either don't notice or don't care. It's precisely why enshittification happens: costs (things the business does to make their products/services more appealing to the customer) go down and revenues (the prices of the products/services) go up.
Making a car and selling the car is profitable (presuming the manufacturer is able to attract buyers). Making a car and selling the car while holding back software features unless the purchaser of the vehicle pays a monthly subscription fee is profitable and rent-seeking. The former used to be what happened and increasingly the latter is what's happening. It's not because the car companies weren't profitable in the past, it's because they want to show investors that they can continue to grow their profits.
Its success stems from a refreshingly unconventional approach to innovation. Liang Wenfeng's philosophy of maintaining a flat organizational structure where researchers have unrestricted access to computing resources and can collaborate freely. What's particularly striking is their deliberate choice to stay lean and problem-focused, avoiding the bureaucratic bloat that often plagues AI departments at larger companies…
This sounded a lot like Valve’s company structure/lack of structure. https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/Valve_Handbook_Lo... Sounds like an exciting place to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "endgame" a common expression to mean "the end", "the place where there's no progress anymore" etc ?
Sorry, am I the only one who finds this sort of formulation in regard to large AI models existentially intimidating?
Its success stems from a refreshingly unconventional approach to innovation. Liang Wenfeng's philosophy of maintaining a flat organizational structure where researchers have unrestricted access to computing resources and can collaborate freely. What's particularly striking is their deliberate choice to stay lean and problem-focused, avoiding the bureaucratic bloat that often plagues AI departments at larger companies…
Either you give people a clear idea what you will build and they will organize accordingly or you organize and they will guess what they are supposed to build according to the org structure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, am I the only one who finds this sort of formulation in regard to large AI models existentially intimidating?
i guess? but what are you hinting at exactly?
It's a worn-out metaphor, but I can't help but think of horses marvelling at this mechanical carriage thing, wondering what's the endgame of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "endgame" a common expression to mean "the end", "the place where there's no progress anymore" etc ?
I think it means more "the place where there's no existential risk any more"
I think this was super interesting, it sounds like he’s leaning more into “open” than openai is. “In disruptive tech, closed-source moats are fleeting. Even OpenAI’s closed-source model can’t prevent others from catching up. “Therefore, our real moat lies in our team’s growth—accumulating know-how, fostering an innovative culture. Open-sourcing and publishing papers don’t result in significant losses. For technologis…
Says someone who personally has 50-100 billion USD. And no, it's not net worth through corp shares. The guy is essentially his own LP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it means more "the place where there's no existential risk any more"
Please say more. What is this state of AI evolution where there's no existential risk any more?