Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

avkcode.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 718 posts

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#681

Post by argomo »

well_ackshually wrote: post #677
argomo wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's a clown what part of his theory is the circus? Are you saying that superintelligence is impossible? Are you saying that the alignment problem will certainty be solved before superintelligence emerges? Are you saying that a superintelligent being connected to the internet would be unable to gain resources such as GPU time, money, and social influence? Are you saying that a superintelligent being would for some…

>Are you saying that superintelligence is impossible? Yes, end of the discussion, I don't debate metaphysics with crackheads, sociology with psychopaths or geography with flat earthers, or very bad science fiction with yudkowski. Going on about "exposing the flaws in the argument" of the crackhead just means wasting your time.

"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"

-- Lord Kelvin, 1895

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#682

Post by rcxdude »

trhway wrote: post #674
rcxdude wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from my point of view, ben_w definitely understand thermodynamics better than you. I'll point out that generally speaking radiative heat transfer from air is not particularly significant locally: it only tends to matter in the details when you're dealing with the whole atmosphere, which on average is a lot cooler. The transfer is also not blackbody radiation, so even then you can't really plug the air temperature int…

>I'll point out that generally speaking radiative heat transfer from air is not particularly significant locally: so, you also think like ben_w that if we put something into a vacuum bottle here on surface on the Earth it will get cool down like in the vacuum of space.

I'm not really sure where you got that idea from, but I don't think it's worth continuing to try to discuss it.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#683

Post by RetroTechie »

RealityVoid wrote: post #204
Havoc wrote: post #169

Inclined to disagree. The winner here will be whoever can move atoms with AI not take notes at the daily standup. i.e. Think boston dynamics vs unitree They're both doing well but I'd lean towards China is winning on atoms in light of a huge manufacturing base they can AI-ify.

We are _miles_ behind successful embodied AI. The demos are cool but the success rates are not high enough. You can tell we're on the cusp when level 5 self driving cars are common an you have multiple companies deploying them on the street. Google is doing great work but the poured TONS of effort into it and the thing still needs intense stacks of perception and processing. Much more than I've seen any humanoids pou…

Too narrow view:

"Moving atoms" can refer to anything that a) touches the physical world, b) has 'eyes' (camera/microphone/Lidar/IR/UV/whatever) and c) requires some brains.

Dark factories exist. This will expand into other areas like logistics, farming, food delivery, maintenance/cleaning jobs, household equipment, etc etc. Over time, blue collar jobs face the same fate.

A lot of this will be powered by AI systems running locally on commodity hardware.

And this is where China is leading: They've got the factories. They build the robots. They make the ICs with integrated video capture & AI features. They fabricate the circuit boards those ICs go on. And they lead in the small/local AI models to run those.

To compete, US would need to re-shore manufacturing which takes decades. Same for EU countries (which have great potential imho if they weren't so slooooww to act & would focus on doing vs. regulate).

Never mind that the billions poured into AI by US companies, are targetting white collar/creative jobs, with the AI part as a cloud service. Or military applications. Not (so much) the manufacturing / logistics etc side of things.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#684

Post by sebastiennight »

well_ackshually wrote: post #678
sebastiennight wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read from him in a while, but I don't think there was a single dated prediction that supports your argument. Do you have any sources for this claim?

The crackhead also doesn't make dated predictions, yet I don't see people holding him up as a great modern thinker and predictor of the future.

So, if we disagree with someone's reasoning, the proper reaction is to make up random unsubstantiated claims about them and compare them to drug addicts?

I don't think this matches the guidelines of this website.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#686

Post by necovek »

gnerd00 wrote: post #671
necovek wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way US dominated in some of the industries (including software, for instance) was by being first to extract large value, and then funding the best people with compensation unachievable elsewhere. This meant that all the talent in the world gravitated towards the US, but that was gradually changing already with compensation catching up. Still, I believe US only hastened this with their change of immigration polici…

> funding the best people that brought surveillance capitalism? this analysis needs a lot of refinement

Best as the most capable, not with the purest motivation.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#687

Post by trhway »

rcxdude wrote: post #682
trhway wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'll point out that generally speaking radiative heat transfer from air is not particularly significant locally: so, you also think like ben_w that if we put something into a vacuum bottle here on surface on the Earth it will get cool down like in the vacuum of space.

I'm not really sure where you got that idea from, but I don't think it's worth continuing to try to discuss it.

i clearly cited your words, and like ben_w you're trying to snake away from your words once it is demonstrated what a nonsense you've said.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#688

Post by ForHackernews »

ericmay wrote: post #643
ForHackernews wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically you are participating in the social signalling ("crappy, cheap phone") phenomenon you claim doesn't exist. https://mashable.com/article/apple-messages-green-doj https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/apple-green-bubble-messa...

Ok just remove "crappy" then and replace with low-quality. We can differentiate on low-quality, high-quality, and more when talking about consumer products. I'm going off of rough memory here, but don't like half of all Americans have an iPhone? Do half of all Americans own a Porsche?

Fine, if you don't like the iPhone analogy then look at Coca-Cola vs store brand Super Cola. They are both brown sugar water, but Coke is Coke. People buy Coke because of the brand, the image and (maybe a little bit) because of the taste.

There is no equivalent in LLM land. AI models are not like Coke vs Other Cola. AI is like electricity or water, a generic commodity with minimal cost or friction to switching. I can flip the VSCode plugin between a dozen different models a day.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#689

Post by AlexCoventry »

dnnddidiej wrote: post #558
AlexCoventry wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

How is this one a submarine? It is not even PR.

It's potentially PR (it hit the front page of HN, and probably not organically) for Trump, Oracle or SAP, just from reading the first few paragraphs.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#690

Post by trhway »

leonidasrup wrote: post #649
trhway wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>will probably break up if it is designed to breakup. And not if it isn't. >no nuclear material involved that is the beauty. No contamination. >that's not going to have a huge impact. in my comment i already specified the TNT equivalent of such an impact. >there's a 0.7 probability It isn't a matter of probability. You can deorbit with high precision, and pretty much hit any desired target on the ground if you have t…

"Project Thor was an idea for a weapons system that launches telephone pole-sized kinetic projectiles made from tungsten from Earth's orbit to damage targets on the ground." "In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 Air Force report above, a 6.1 by 0.3 metres (20 ft × 1 ft) tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 (11,200 ft/s; 3,400 m/s) has kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (48 GJ)."…

Yes, you guys are right about Mach 10, i missed that the final speed is so low, i used some calculations from somewhat similar, yet different setup. So, i'm about 5x mistaken on TNT equivalent.

I still believe that it is possible to do noticeably better, yet it would take some technological effort - somewhat similar to how Russian supercavitating torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval does or like some hypersonic weapons do by creating a plasma cloud ahead.

Even more - we can create plasma channel by using tandem schema. The first, smaller rod flies down heating and ionizing the air thus "paving" the way for the second, main, much larger rod. The delay between them is such that the main rod passes almost immediately right behind the second in the a-max (maximum deceleration) layer between 3 and 5 km altitude. If they enter 5km at 20 Mach, the first will slow down to almost 10 Mach at 3km, so the main should enter the 5km altitude 0.2 seconds behind the first. The wind speed at those altitudes is 10-20m/s, thus the channel has to be only about 2-4m wide. I actually have been thinking about this from the other side - a large gun for space launch.

Post reply on HN