supern0va

10 ms·

61.
by supern0va 3mo ago
It's currently broke people chat.
62.
by supern0va 3mo ago
>Also the article could be trying to normalize thinking that these are more than matrix multiplication gadgets good at compression. Honestly, I think it's less so (for some of us) that we think they're "more than matrix mu
63.
by supern0va 4mo ago
You're right, there is an all powerful wizard who can take away all the world's computers. You got me. There's a reason Yudkowsky only thinks AI can be stopped by literal missile strikes against data centers.
64.
by supern0va 4mo ago
It's famously difficult to find people willing to rent you time on big computers over the internet.
65.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>Unless you're running Linux yourself, it can absolutely be taken away.
66.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Even Karpathy acknowledged that this would require some baseline of human knowledge. The idea wasn't pure logic/reasoning, but some subset to bootstrap from.
67.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>To this I would say: migration is not the path to spreading users out across instances at a large scale. Migration to me is more of an insurance against a service going down or turning evil. I think people aren't paying enough atte
68.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>AI is also great at the mechanics of writing. Should people stop writing? Obviously not. The job of writing is to be read. The job of code is not to be read: it merely helps the humans who write the code. If the code is no longer read b
69.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>"Most people" cannot afford $30 /month. And of those who can, most of those cannot afford the time and effort required to run a relay. I don't think that was a recommendation for people to do, but to demonstrate that
70.
by supern0va 4mo ago
People seem to have turned down offers that would have netted out more upside for them, so it doesn't seem to just be that. Anthropic seems to lure in the true believers, whereas people are highly skeptical of Sam's motivations
71.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Reporting on this seems to indicate that people at Anthropic are significantly more loyal, and that attempts to poach by OpenAI and Meta have been largely unsuccessful.
72.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>The cost of failure at scale is too high for a major to just take a new architecture/mechanism and implement it, Is it, though? This scrappy startup was able to take a large(-ish) open weights model and adapt it. Why can't the
73.
by supern0va 4mo ago
I have no idea if the evaluator themselves is trustworthy, but it was supposedly independently evaluated by Appen: https://www.appen.com/whitepapers/benchmarking-subquadratics...
74.
by supern0va 4mo ago
You don't understand why the thing their entire company is valued upon is...not being given away freely? They literally are taking an open source model and then adapting it with this technique. If they disclose it, the frontier labs w
75.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Oof, this comment is too real. There's a dark future timeline where snark becomes the new "don't use any em-dashes" that people inject even more of to intentionally look human, since empathy and patience read as..robotic
76.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Ah, yeah. I've noticed people also starting to just use "slop" to also mean "anything I see online that I don't like" now, too. Words apparently don't mean anything anymore.
77.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>Point is that both are science fiction narratives and neither reflect reality in any way what-so-ever. How fast a car can drive and how much a LLMs can compute are bounded quantities, limited by the physical reality. In both cases we ca
78.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>I can just as well describe the future evolution of the internal combustion engine and claim it will get more and more efficient and eventually we will be able to burn oil so efficiently that our personal vehicles can fly through the at
79.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Sure, but there will be an upper bound after which we will be close to human level performance on the vast majority of tasks, and then at that point the focus becomes efficiency (or a continuing road to superintelligence for some tasks). Bu
80.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>Things did not change in the past 10 years, I see no reason why it should change 10 years from now. Has it not? Why do you say that? Also, do we still require a Deep Blue sized supercomputer for chess? :)
81.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>The amount of computations for a human to do the same tasks is thousands of orders of magnitudes less. That may very well be true now. And in fact, this was true of more rudimentary calculations early on in computing history, where huma
82.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>"AI slop" caught on but "clanker" did not. It caught on, sure, but not exactly in the way I expected. The wild popularity of "slop" as a term for AI eventually gave way to the genericization of the word &qu
83.
by supern0va 4mo ago
AI models decompose problems down into tiny pieces that exist in their training data, so in a sense, you're correct. Though that's also what makes humans so good at solving problems as well, it turns out. Also, slight tangent: but
84.
by supern0va 4mo ago
Just to be clear: that is quoted text from the source and not a statement I'm making, in case that's what you're suggesting here.
85.
by supern0va 4mo ago
It's clear that the parent didn't bother to read the link they shared, which articulates exactly this. That's embarrassing. From the link: > They summarized their findings from the nine months: > 1. Humans find GPT-2 o
86.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>The ARR were fine but showing skewed quarterly profitability numbers by slowing down research due to hitting compute capacity suggests otherwise. I have to say, I find this really puzzling. We know for a fact that Anthropic are making b
87.
by supern0va 4mo ago
On the surface, that's quite fair. However, there's one problem: it is much easier to make statements than to verify them, and that asymmetry is part of why the internet has been slowly eroding society. It's useful/neces
88.
by supern0va 4mo ago
I highly recommend folks read Wired's profile on him: https://www.wired.com/story/ai-pr-ed-zitron-profile/ Tim Lee also pointed out that when Ed has posted details on some of his analysis, they have had some.
89.
by supern0va 4mo ago
>He was responding to your comment No, I could be mistaken, but I think he was clarifying his higher up comment: >Imagine yourself in an isolation chamber. What are you thinking? Are you no longer conscious?
90.
by supern0va 4mo ago
I like how in spite of the author explaining why (father of two small children that occupy his free time), you jumped to the most negative set of possibilities. Instead, it sounds like when he's with his children, he is focusing on the

More ›