I was never that into the open source community, but I did admire it from afar.

I don’t see how anyone would ever contribute to open source now, knowing it will just be thrown into the meat processor.

GPT is basically a machine that builds machines.

We understand how the machine builder works. We don’t understand how the output of the machine works. Like mechanically we understand each individual sub-component works e.g. a single matrix multiplication, but we don’t understand why specific weights are the value they are, or the broader macrostructure.

I don’t think you realize that acting like “No we actually do understand how it works” just reveals that you don’t understand the question, it does not show that the question has an answer.

Please explain what this one specific weight is, and why that value shouldn’t be higher or lower.

It’s just a series of 10 trillion floats. And we don’t really know what the individual floats represent and changing them degrades performance but hey

Technically. It’s just if statements.

Great edit. I love this.

It’s a 20/80 rule thing.

Coming up with a proof is the first 20% of work. Actually checking and validating the proof is the next 80% of work.

Yes I agree. To reach my current comp in basically any field, it would be a 10 year grind.

I’m better off just sitting in tech and letting inflation eat away my TC over the next 20 years until it pays similar to other low-end eng work. But in the mean time I’ll make above-average while working 30 hours/week. Woe is me.

If I could make 70% as much in a different field, I would have switched by now.

I no longer enjoy my field as a profession. There is no “solving” anything anymore, it’s just prompting a bot and building tools that make it better and better at replacing me. But the reality is, without pursuing a masters in a different field, this is the most money I can make for the lowest amount of work. The field is dying and in the mean time we’re taking home standard salaries.

Personally I’m pursuing a fintech specialty since IMO specializing is our last hope to survive the AI destruction. But I don’t enjoy it.

At least in the major retailers in my area - yes.

They are annoying AF and that’s coming from a pretty antisocial person.

Self checkout in theory is better for both sides - business and consumer.

That said most self checkout as implemented is insufferable. The modern experience is waiting 5 minutes for someone to clear out your order because you accidentally clicked the version of Limes that this store doesn’t sell, despite it being an option on the POS, or to tap no / decline on the 5 different “Donate? Round up? Bag? Survey? Phone number?” prompts, or for the POS to lock up because you scanned a single can 3 times rather than 3 cans once, or for the cart to lock up so you slam your shin into it because the camera determined you were a thief.

Personally I avoid all self checkouts.

Some have, most haven’t. And those that have had mostly adopted the philosophy of “Every token spent is a a token spent well; except the ~10% of staff that abuse/misuse them”.

And with that philosophy, you naturally want to set the per-person budget at around the 90th highest spender. Which is what most did (some version of it).

So very few companies have actually set a truly restrictive policy. Just a “don’t abuse this” policy. But that will change IMO.

I’m saying Burry’s opinion on the timing is irrelevant.

He calls a crash basically every quarter since the '08 crash recovered. If you shorted every time he suggested something was going to burst “sooner than later”, you would already be bankrupt.

Frankly I’m fine with the alliance, and fine if their motivation is believing ai art is bad because it didn’t originate from a “soul”. Like fine. Believe what you want.

Now go destroy some data centers (in Minecraft ofc)

I’m not sure what the term is for when “the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but that friend is also a lesser enemy” is. But fuck it, I’m on team Jesus apparently

A Catholic Church that defends artists as policy is a win in my book.

I agree in principle. It’s getting harder to believe that is possible at this point.

A combination of 1) companies maturing their AI policy and ending the “infinite play time” model most have had since 2021 e.g. cutting spending and 2) open source and open parameter models becoming better and better and cheaper. Data centers will still be in demand for #2 but the ai providers will hurt.

He’s been saying this for 4 years

It’s among the more annoying parts of the whole AI thing, amid an ocean of things too-concerning-to-be-annoying.

“AI” / llm’s, are not artificial intelligence in the way laypeople mean it, and in the sense that LLM’s are AI - we’ve had AI for decades. Occasionally I’ll be socializing with someone I consider very intellgenet (e.x. recently, a chemical engineer) who was telling me how they just learned AI’s ‘just predict the next word’, and it just bugs me so so much how little people understand these things.

Like, they are ruining our world. Climate, commerce, security - everything is going to get a LOT shittier. And you don’t understand at a basic level how it works. It’s just sad.

Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.

“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”

If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.

People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.

The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.

I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.