Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think the company that just gave 40B to Anthropic isn’t the winner? Interesting.
Was Microsoft the winner based on their 50B investment in OpenAI?
Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
621–630 of 915 posts
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#622Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but this AI wave has nothing to do how we came to AI winter in the 70s or 80s. The necessary amount of Compute, interconnect (internet), money, researcher etc. wasn't available at that time. and we did not invest the most amount of money and compute and brain power as we are doing right now. This is unseen.
Ah, the youth... "The new economy" also didn't have anything to do with the previous one. Turns out that it crashed just as well.
I do follow ML/AI/AGI though for a decade by now and read a lot about Neuronal networks, LLMs, etc. in a broad spectrum.
My prediction regarding Crypto/blockchain was true too.
We will see how it plays out. I'm open for both, but I think it would be naive to ignore whats going on and its way to soon to assume there is a AI winter coming soon.
We sitll want to see what Mythos can do and a distilled version of it.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#623Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like you either have not worked with any human or with an LLM otherwise arriving at such a conclusion is damn impossible. The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edg…
I think you are very fortunate. I have worked with plenty of software developers like that, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them have been like that.
And yes, there were always incompetent folks but those were steered by smarter ones to contain the damage.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t though, AGI have far greater implications than doing mundane work of today. Actual AGI would self improve, that in itself would change literally every single thing of human civilization, instead we are talking about replacing white collar jobs.
An AGI that can do all that would also necessarily be able to do all white collar work. That latter definition I'd consider a "soft threshold" that would be hit before recursive self-improvement, which I imagine would happen soon after. The current estimation on the time between this is fairly small, bottlenecked most likely by compute constraints, risk aversion, and need to implement safeguards. Metaculus puts it at…
I don’t really buy into the ”one part equals another”, we are very quick to make those assumptions but they are usually far from the science fiction promised. Batteries and self driving cars comes to mind, and organic or otherwise crazy storage technologies, all ”very soon” for multiple decades.
It’s very possible that white collar jobs get automated to a large degree and we’ll be nowhere closer to AGI than we were in the 70’s, I would actually bet on that outcome being far more likely.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find them very helpful. I use gemini regularly for multiply things. I also believe that whatever code researchers and other non software engineers wrote before coding agents, were similiar shitty but took them a lot longer to write. Like do you know how many researchers need to do some data analysis and hack around code because they never learned programming? So so many. If they know how to verify their data (which…
I don't particularly care about coding and didn't weigh in on it. There is no dispute that people debate if it is effective at that. You can take that debate up with them, not me.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#626Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see how you could care (a lot) about both the UI and reliability.
One is caused by the other. Amazons engineers decided to split the interface in a “user hostile” manner with the stated purpose of increasing reliability… which didn’t materialise. The clunky UI did. Or maybe you can provide a better explanation for why users had to “hunt” through hundreds(!) of product-region combinations to find that last lingering service they were getting billed $0.01 a month for? This just doesn…
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the recent Dwarkesh Podcast episode Jensen Huang (Nvidia) said that virtually nobody but Anthropic uses TPUs. How does that add up?
You're asking why a businessman would downplay the use of a competing product line?
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#628Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GPUs are bottom-barrel for compute-focused industries. It is mobile-grade hardware that arguably can't even scale to prior Mac Pro workloads. Surprised Apple didn't create a TPU-like architecture. Another misstep from John Gianneadrea.
I'm confused how anyone ever thought the NPU would be a good idea. The GPU is almost always underutilized on Mac and could do the brunt of the work for inference if it embraced GPGPU principles from the start. Creating a dedicated hardware block to alleviate a theoretical congestion issue is... bewildering. That goes for most NPUs I've seen. Apple had the technology to scale down a GPGPU-focused architecture just lik…
(Like “I want to do object detection for cutting people into stickers on device without blowing a hole in the battery, make me a chip for that”.)
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#629Earlier quoted context omitted.
PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive humans are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes, and their output MUST be reviewed carefully, so you’re not any different either. You’re just a random next-thought generator based on neuron firing distributions with no real thought process, trained on a few billion years of evolution like all other humans.
Looks like you either have not worked with any human or with an LLM otherwise arriving at such a conclusion is damn impossible. The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edg…