4 ms·

Very US-centric article. Written by insecure people who are clinging to power and money desperately. I don't see how some kind of big breakthrough is going to

Very US-centric article. Written by insecure people who are clinging to power and money desperately. I don't see how some kind of big breakthrough is going to happen with the current model designs. The superintelligence, if it will ever be created, will require a new breakthrough in model architecture. We've pretty much hit the limit of what is possible with current LLMs. The improvements are marginal at this point. Secondly, hypothetically, the US achieves superintelligence, what is stopping China from doing the same in a month or two, for example? Even if China achieves a big breakthrough first, it may benefit the rest of the world.

CuriouslyC 1y ago
It's a US/China centered article, because that's the game, Europe is not a meaningful player and everyone else is going to get sucked into orbit of one of the superpowers. If you read the article carefully, I work hard to keep my priors and the priors of the people in question separate, as their actions may be rational under their priors, but irrational under other priors, and I feel it's worth understanding that nuance. I'm curious where you got the writer "clinging to power and money desperately." Also, to be fair, I envy Europe right now, but we can't take that path.
- protocolture 1y ago
  >It's a US/China centered article, because that's the game The game seems to be everyone else waiting for the R&D money to provide us amazing open source models, and then just run those locally.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  I read your article. My cynical take is that this is the US committing economic suicide, based on a misguided belief in something that'll never happen. The new superpowers will be the EU, which was smart enough not to make the same gamble, and China, which will structurally survive it. I also disagree with your conclusion of a moral imperative to make sure that AI succeeds. I believe it's the opposite. AI failing would finally create the long-needed revolutionary moment to throw off the shackles of the oligarchy that got us into this mess in the first place.
  - Our_Benefactors 1y ago
    > The new superpowers will be the EU Not with how much pulling teeth is required to get them to invest in defense. I don't see how you can unironically make the claim that a written down investment would sink the ship that is the US economy.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      The EU moves slowly, but is unstoppable once in motion. A written down investment thats four times the size of the mortgage crisis.
      - Our_Benefactors 1y ago
        I assure you, this is not a game where “the only winning move is not to play”, in spite of whatever your domestic politicians are feeding the population.
        latchup 1y ago
        Are you sure? Based on what? All I see is people desperately throwing money they don't have at AI like a gambling addict who just converted their child's college fund into chips. Call me a buzzkill here, but my bet is you aren't gonna hit it big. While you can win at the casino, that requires a careful plan with contingency solutions, which AI simply does not have. Realistically speaking, it is indeed best to just not play this game; you are just digging a deeper hole.
    - latchup 1y ago
      I think you missed the point. The EU is "winning by doing nothing" whereas the US is liable for the huge failing investment it made. US economical growth is now entirely reliant on AI, so an AI crash guarantees immediate recession and out-of-control stagflation. The EU with its "less advanced" economy will keep growing just fine with or without AI, surviving the front-line bloodbath by staying behind. As for defense, they are spending exactly as much as necessary at each point in time: just enough to keep credible US backing until 2025, and as much as they can without destroying their economy since. There is no good argument for an irresponsible spending spree, as the only powers that can realistically challenge the EU without triggering nuclear holocaust are the US and China anyways (Russia don't stand a chance).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kulahan 1y ago
So often, I see comments that seem to make sense only in a vacuum. If the US disappeared from the scene tomorrow, how do you think the geopolitical landscape might change? The competition between the US and China is pertinent to everyone.
- WastedCucumber 1y ago
  What do you mean? I don't see how the commenter was saying anything about the irrelevance of US-China competition, in fact some of their points hinge on the existence of that competition, which is why they described the asticle as very US-centric.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    "Very US-centric article. Written by insecure people who are clinging to power and money desperately."
yalogin 1y ago
How so? I don’t see how it’s wrong. It’s US centric because the context is US specific. AI is positioned as too big to fail.

CuriouslyC 1y ago

It's a US/China centered article, because that's the game, Europe is not a meaningful player and everyone else is going to get sucked into orbit of one of the superpowers. If you read the article carefully, I work hard to keep my priors and the priors of the people in question separate, as their actions may be rational under their priors, but irrational under other priors, and I feel it's worth understanding that nuance. I'm curious where you got the writer "clinging to power and money desperately." Also, to be fair, I envy Europe right now, but we can't take that path.

protocolture 1y ago
>It's a US/China centered article, because that's the game The game seems to be everyone else waiting for the R&D money to provide us amazing open source models, and then just run those locally.
saubeidl 1y ago
I read your article. My cynical take is that this is the US committing economic suicide, based on a misguided belief in something that'll never happen. The new superpowers will be the EU, which was smart enough not to make the same gamble, and China, which will structurally survive it. I also disagree with your conclusion of a moral imperative to make sure that AI succeeds. I believe it's the opposite. AI failing would finally create the long-needed revolutionary moment to throw off the shackles of the oligarchy that got us into this mess in the first place.
- Our_Benefactors 1y ago
  > The new superpowers will be the EU Not with how much pulling teeth is required to get them to invest in defense. I don't see how you can unironically make the claim that a written down investment would sink the ship that is the US economy.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    The EU moves slowly, but is unstoppable once in motion. A written down investment thats four times the size of the mortgage crisis.
    - Our_Benefactors 1y ago
      I assure you, this is not a game where “the only winning move is not to play”, in spite of whatever your domestic politicians are feeding the population.
      - latchup 1y ago
        Are you sure? Based on what? All I see is people desperately throwing money they don't have at AI like a gambling addict who just converted their child's college fund into chips. Call me a buzzkill here, but my bet is you aren't gonna hit it big. While you can win at the casino, that requires a careful plan with contingency solutions, which AI simply does not have. Realistically speaking, it is indeed best to just not play this game; you are just digging a deeper hole.
  - latchup 1y ago
    I think you missed the point. The EU is "winning by doing nothing" whereas the US is liable for the huge failing investment it made. US economical growth is now entirely reliant on AI, so an AI crash guarantees immediate recession and out-of-control stagflation. The EU with its "less advanced" economy will keep growing just fine with or without AI, surviving the front-line bloodbath by staying behind. As for defense, they are spending exactly as much as necessary at each point in time: just enough to keep credible US backing until 2025, and as much as they can without destroying their economy since. There is no good argument for an irresponsible spending spree, as the only powers that can realistically challenge the EU without triggering nuclear holocaust are the US and China anyways (Russia don't stand a chance).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kulahan 1y ago

So often, I see comments that seem to make sense only in a vacuum. If the US disappeared from the scene tomorrow, how do you think the geopolitical landscape might change? The competition between the US and China is pertinent to everyone.

WastedCucumber 1y ago
What do you mean? I don't see how the commenter was saying anything about the irrelevance of US-China competition, in fact some of their points hinge on the existence of that competition, which is why they described the asticle as very US-centric.
- kulahan 1y ago
  "Very US-centric article. Written by insecure people who are clinging to power and money desperately."

yalogin 1y ago

How so? I don’t see how it’s wrong. It’s US centric because the context is US specific. AI is positioned as too big to fail.