danaris

22 ms·

391.
by danaris 7mo ago
Any given company could stop training tomorrow, and, as some others have said here, they'd be generating quite a bit of profit until their models visibly fell behind, however long that ended up taking, at which point they'd probab
392.
by danaris 7mo ago
I don't know about others, but with Amazon specifically, it's always been very clear that their "losing money" in aggregate was purely on paper, for tax purposes: their ability to undercut everyone else was initially bas
393.
by danaris 7mo ago
Frankly? That's Google's (well, Alphabet's, I guess) problem. They're a multibillion-dollar international monopoly with absolutely staggering amounts of money and power, actively engaging in a wide variety of activities
394.
by danaris 7mo ago
It seems likely that if there were spaces that could (both physically and politically) be assigned for this, they already would have been. Sure, it would be great if we could have nice things like that, but all too often we need to work wit
395.
by danaris 7mo ago
Ah, well you see, now CNBC has declared it official! That obviously speaks for itself in how authoritative and momentous it is! /s
396.
by danaris 7mo ago
But Moore's Law went out the window over a decade ago. Oh, sure, we're still getting things smaller and faster—but nowhere near the same rate we were before. Nowadays most (not all, but most) of the advances we're getting are
397.
by danaris 7mo ago
The only alternative is to keep feeding the bubble deliberately , while knowing that it's a bubble. And no bubble can last forever. And the longer they go, and the larger they get, the worse the fallout is when they finally pop.
398.
by danaris 7mo ago
First, you have to define "AGI". Next, you have to have a clear path to reaching it. Then, you have to have the resources to actually walk that path. Only with all three of those can you make any credible claim that AGI is near.
399.
by danaris 7mo ago
The evidence is the last 9 years of scaling. The curve flattened out years ago. The exponential was going from GPT-2 to GPT-4 (or thereabouts). After that, it was painfully obvious to anyone observing without a vested interest in believ
400.
by danaris 7mo ago
What you're describing is "revealed preferences theory", and it requires a truly free set of choices—essentially, when looking at it in relation to companies like Google, it relies on "free market theory", the kind
401.
by danaris 7mo ago
That doesn't change the ethics of it. The only reason that worked is because Google is an unstoppable monopoly juggernaut whose name is literally synonymous with searching the web.
402.
by danaris 7mo ago
> (with an opt out) And this is the problem: any time you're adding a new "feature" that invades users' privacy, it needs to be opt-in .
403.
by danaris 7mo ago
The problem is, GitHub is owned by Microsoft, and Microsoft is desperately trying to shove AI into everything in hopes that it will save them.
404.
by danaris 7mo ago
"Decline" in people's trust in a particular platform, in this case. Or the decline of the platform or company itself.
405.
by danaris 7mo ago
It doesn't take all the specialized Windows-only line-of-business software being rewritten to have massive defections to Linux happen. The market you're describing is real, and very significant—but I don't think it's
406.
by danaris 7mo ago
This is overly reductive, black-and-white thinking. Yes, it is impossible to be 100% ironclad secure from all possible methods of either digitally surveilling you or exfiltrating your data. This does not mean that measures like those in the
407.
by danaris 7mo ago
> Laptops are increasingly just clients for someone else's compute that you rent, or buy a time slice with your eyeballs, much like smartphones pretty much always have been. What are you talking about? My laptops are, and always h
408.
by danaris 7mo ago
So...what should we be spending? Gold coins? Pesos? Cows? Inferior-quality copper ingots? It's entirely possible that you have a good point, but if so, it's gonna need a whole hell of a lot more context to elucidate.
409.
by danaris 7mo ago
That's nowhere near the level of dependency that fossil fuels bring. Barring significant damage, you can maintain approximately your current level of power generation for years at a time without more than routine maintenance. Fossil
410.
by danaris 7mo ago
There are already ways to make some of the chemicals (largely plastics) being made from petroleum derivatives using renewable sources, like vegetable oils. I don't pretend to know much about the details—at any level—so I don't kno
411.
by danaris 7mo ago
I mean, if you consider "building the whole gas station" to be the infrastructure, then sure, but building a gas station requires significantly more complex infrastructure than installing an EV charger or two. You need to inst
412.
by danaris 7mo ago
Ah, HN. "There's likely to be a global recession, driving millions of people to destitution and starvation and thousands to death. How can I profit from this?!!! "
413.
by danaris 7mo ago
I mean, if you could download an update that would fix the wiring in your house, it would be much less critical that the initial installer got it right. (Still much more important than your router, though; it doesn't stop being an elec
414.
by danaris 7mo ago
But we also hit serious diminishing returns effects—in the last decade for hardware, in the last 2-3 years for LLMs. Just because things have advanced in leaps and bounds for X amount of time does not mean they will continue to do so at t
415.
by danaris 7mo ago
That's irrelevant. The claim being made is not "no computer will ever be able to adapt to and assist us with new technologies as they come out." The claim being made is "modern LLMs cannot adapt to and assist us with n
416.
by danaris 7mo ago
Sure there is. But some of the datacenters individually use as much power as an entire city. When you're trying to build out dozens or hundreds of those across the country, there's no way we can ramp up capacity at that rate.
417.
by danaris 7mo ago
> taxpayers would rather I think if you look at poll numbers, you'll find that taxpayers, on the whole, would very much rather not be bombing schools across the world. Trump's pointless (indeed, highly counterproductive) stri
418.
by danaris 7mo ago
> The US is plenty wealthy per capita This is not a particularly useful statistic when talking about the number of cars being bought. Almost invariably, "per capita wealth" uses mean wealth. This is dramatically different fro
419.
by danaris 7mo ago
> That's an opinion, not a fact. No, that's not how this works. It's either a correct fact or an incorrect fact . And if you don't know whether it's correct or incorrect, that doesn't mean nobody does,
420.
by danaris 7mo ago
Can you link the peer-reviewed citations for having solved the racial bias issues, in anything but specific bespoke cases? Frankly, I'm skeptical, but I'm willing to be convinced by reputable evidence.

More ›