3 ms·

Distills are bad for the US economy because they compress margins that otherwise go to pushing the frontier. You'd see model progress dramatically slowed if US

Distills are bad for the US economy because they compress margins that otherwise go to pushing the frontier. You'd see model progress dramatically slowed if US companies had to compete on distills.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> You'd see model progress dramatically slowed if US companies had to compete on distills We’re already competing on distills—they exist. The question is whether America will actually compete or if it will lean into its populist tendency and cede the market globally to China.
- solenoid0937 3mo ago
  If you want the cost of today's intelligence to go down, distills are fantastic. If you want AGI to arrive sooner, distills force you to move your compute off the frontier and will necessarily delay it significantly. It's a question of what you actually want out of the AI race.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > If you want AGI to arrive sooner Yeah, I don’t buy this is happening. I’m open to being wrong. But folks who believe that can put their money where their mouths are in terms for stumping up cash for the training. > distills force you to move your compute off the frontier Versus moving it to inference?
    - solenoid0937 3mo ago
      I guess I don't know how you can use the latest models and feel that we are not on the verge of some kind of intelligence. Maybe it's your harness, maybe your problems aren't complicated enough. I find it bizarre to outright dismiss the possibility of AGI in this day and age.
brazukadev 3mo ago
bad for the US economy but good for the World economy.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > bad for the US economy Almost certainly not in the long term. If AI is a productivity enhancer, which I think we have evidence for, then the American economy’s heft (and continuing dynamism) get a tailwind. The minority of the new, leveraged economy getting hit will be a short-term painful adjustment, but it need not be anything more.
  - brazukadev 3mo ago
    The longer the US AI strategy continues to be to bet on openai/anthropic the bigger it will be the US economy impact. The US bounced back from the dotcom crash and the 2008 crash, it does not mean it will bounce back after an AI crash.
    - wolttam 3mo ago
      Well, one thing it will still have is a boat-load of compute.
    - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
      > it does not mean it will bounce back after an AI crash It almost certainly will. AI dominates growth. It doesn’t dominate the actual economy. Most spending and investment is entirely decoupled from it.
  - everforward 3mo ago
    The distills are almost certainly bad for the US economy. AIs promise is undercutting knowledge work, which is our primary export. Manufacturing left ages ago. In theory, if OpenAI/Anthropic win then the US still wins since they’re headquartered here. If open or Chinese models succeed, it undercuts our knowledge work market and that money starts flowing out to inference providers instead of in to US companies and their employees.

Distills are bad for the US economy because they compress margins that otherwise go to pushing the frontier. You'd see model progress dramatically slowed if US companies had to compete on distills.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago

> You'd see model progress dramatically slowed if US companies had to compete on distills We’re already competing on distills—they exist. The question is whether America will actually compete or if it will lean into its populist tendency and cede the market globally to China.

solenoid0937 3mo ago
If you want the cost of today's intelligence to go down, distills are fantastic. If you want AGI to arrive sooner, distills force you to move your compute off the frontier and will necessarily delay it significantly. It's a question of what you actually want out of the AI race.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > If you want AGI to arrive sooner Yeah, I don’t buy this is happening. I’m open to being wrong. But folks who believe that can put their money where their mouths are in terms for stumping up cash for the training. > distills force you to move your compute off the frontier Versus moving it to inference?
  - solenoid0937 3mo ago
    I guess I don't know how you can use the latest models and feel that we are not on the verge of some kind of intelligence. Maybe it's your harness, maybe your problems aren't complicated enough. I find it bizarre to outright dismiss the possibility of AGI in this day and age.

brazukadev 3mo ago

bad for the US economy but good for the World economy.

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> bad for the US economy Almost certainly not in the long term. If AI is a productivity enhancer, which I think we have evidence for, then the American economy’s heft (and continuing dynamism) get a tailwind. The minority of the new, leveraged economy getting hit will be a short-term painful adjustment, but it need not be anything more.
- brazukadev 3mo ago
  The longer the US AI strategy continues to be to bet on openai/anthropic the bigger it will be the US economy impact. The US bounced back from the dotcom crash and the 2008 crash, it does not mean it will bounce back after an AI crash.
  - wolttam 3mo ago
    Well, one thing it will still have is a boat-load of compute.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > it does not mean it will bounce back after an AI crash It almost certainly will. AI dominates growth. It doesn’t dominate the actual economy. Most spending and investment is entirely decoupled from it.
- everforward 3mo ago
  The distills are almost certainly bad for the US economy. AIs promise is undercutting knowledge work, which is our primary export. Manufacturing left ages ago. In theory, if OpenAI/Anthropic win then the US still wins since they’re headquartered here. If open or Chinese models succeed, it undercuts our knowledge work market and that money starts flowing out to inference providers instead of in to US companies and their employees.