tmnvdb

13 ms·

91.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
People have stopped using LLMs? I wasn't aware of that. Can you share a source for that?
92.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
I think the way he sketches the the AI labs as "marketing geniuses" for not just releasing their models as auto-correct is a bit cynical, as well as implying in general that these labs are muddying the waters on purpose by not agr
93.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Hmm, it seems that the author takes very clear (and sometimes cynical) positions on some controversial questions. For example, "They don't have the capacity to think through problems logically." is an hotly debated claim, and
94.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
I'm amazed people are upvoting this piece which does not grapple with any of the real issues in a serious way. I guess some folks just really want AI to go away and are longing to hear that it is just all newfangled nonsense from the c
95.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
That assumes all good ideas naturally translate into viable business models, but markets don’t always work that way. Consumers don’t always have the information, leverage, or incentive to push for things like transparency—especially in indu
96.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
If you didn't need disruption, why did people choose to use the new service?
97.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Only the answer is taken into account for scoring. The <thinking> part is not.
98.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
https://oatllm.notion.site/oat-zero
99.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Conceptual reasoning machines rely on concrete, explicit and intelligble concepts and rules. People like this because it 'looks' like reasoning on the inside. However, our brains, like language models, rely on implicit, distribute
100.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
We have been in the 'magic scaling' era for a while now. While the basic architecture of language models is reasonably simple and well understood, the emergent effects of making models bigger are largely magic even to the research
101.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
"There are no LLMS that reason" is a claim about language, namely that the word 'reason' can only ever be applied to humans.
102.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
If he actually did it that would be far worse.
103.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
SMIC makes the Ascend 910c using its N+2 process—basically TSMC’s 7nm equivalent—and ASML’s TWINSCAN NXT:2000i DUV immersion lithography machines. But with yields stuck around 20% late last year, it's far from commercial-grade. GlobalF
104.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
That Article does not mention Google, and Google did not develop the Lavender system used by the Israeli.
105.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
The US mainland is not currently under threat but the US world system is.
106.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
I'm not a fan of Trump but I also feel he has not been so bad that I think that surrendering the world order to Russia and China is a rational action that minimizes suffering. That seems be an argument that is more about signalling tha
107.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
The risks needs to be weighed against the downside of not deploying a capable system against your enemies.
108.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Lavender is not an autonomous weapon but if you want to seriously consider if Lavender is a good thing (I am undecided) you need to compare the effect of this operation with Lavender and the effect of doing the same operation without the La
109.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
The logic of this argument implies we should develop weapons with maximal collateral damage to deter their usage.
110.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Google is a company that relies to a large extent on users to trust them with their data and for advertisers to want to be associated with them. Hence they have a stronger incentive to avoid being seen as an evil corp then some other compan
111.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
This sentiment ignores the reality on the ground in favor of performative ideological purity - civilians are already getting blown up all the time by systems that do not even attempt to make any distinction between civilians and soldiers: a
112.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
I understand the sentiment but the logical conclusion of that argument is that the US should disarm and cease existing.
113.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Indeed. Usually weapons are banned if the damage is high and indiscriminate while the military usefulness is low. There is at this moment little evidence that autonomous weapons will cause more collateral damage than artillery shells and re
114.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
With or without autonomous weapons, war is always a sordid business with 'dead babies', this is not in itself a fact that tells us what weapons systems to develop.
115.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Yes the case against death camps is not that they are a waste of time symbolic measure with no real world effects.
116.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
117.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
You're right, the EU does have a lot of capital, but its not made available to European business.
118.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Gleefully celebrating the defeat of my enemies is not complaining.
119.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Developers are cheaper but not a lot, and regulatory costs are higher - the difference in the end in not huge. Plus: if you want to win a global market you need global talent at global wages. You need a lot of private capital and Europe doe
120.
by tmnvdb 2y ago
Because America has the best private capital and startup ecosystem in the world it has a good chance of picking the big winners. There is no corresponding European ecosystem, only a bunch of small national ones. In fact, European investors

More ›