AIblemblio

No they can't.

And as long as I pay as little for claude opus 5.5 i do right now, i'm using it.

But yes i'm glad that we have alternatives.

They are on a github repo and not in a Research Paper.

I find certain points woo wishiwashi.

I think its very reasonable for AI to speedup superconductor finding which will make medical scanning a lot cheaper, easier and better.

It will also allow for massive and easy energy transportation for large distances like afrika/spain <> europe.

In medicin understanding DNA and the results of it could lead to solving cancer and dementia.

New better batery chemicals will help us for solid state batteries. no AAA version of this but up to 1000kwh/kg + low temp and high temp stability and very stable against burning.

Physical ai will solve human labor.

No and AI is out of the bottle anyway.

EVERYONE needs to re-visit how they work and what investment is needed.

You can't go around and don't think that no one has to reevaluate how to add ai to research and development.

I have to do this, my company has to do it and for sure a university has to do this too.

This is not propaganda, this is real AI progress and massivly too.

And im completly lost on why you think sharing progress is irresponsible? Its not a recipe for building a nuclear weapon at home in 5 easy steps.

THese are Math proofs.

Either a Mathematican ignores it, or not. Thats the only risk.

Running QWen costs so much locally, that a $20 subscription costs the same with better quality, significant better but less privacy.

Team costs simliar to normal plan. $20/$25 is not much. the $5 extra you pay for the team features like shared workspaces.

So you still pay $100/$200 dollar per person and depending on the size of the company, you have to use and pay API costs.

Microsoft has full and unlimited access to OpenAI models. That was some agreement when they invested originally.

Besides that the article states quite high numbers, budget is budget in these companies.

You had budget for your normal salaries, for externals and now suddenly you have a few millions additional.

What do you do? You compensate.

Business people doing business things.

Our ai basic analysis for SRE / k8s based platform is haiku and its surprisngly good.

I wouldn't even tried it, i would still just go with even Opus (we don't have that many alerts) but it really surpsied me.

When i ran into usage limits a few days ago i switched most to Sonnet and again was surprised how good it is now.

the poster did mention "if it saves 10% of your time".

So be less snarky?

The reckoning will be throwing out all external help, then reducing team sizes.

Uh the history / growth of an artist, love it :)

I agree partially aabout your google view but it just might be the first easy thing someone plays around with and gets motivated to dive deeper.

For destroying it for sure not.

But if its really smart, it would already created a company and a legal entity and simultes a real company and just gets richer and takes over the economy without anyone being aware of it.

When do you draw a line then?

I had an idea for a small game for ages, never the time for it and now i'm vibing on it randomly because its fun.

How much finetuning/prompting would you allow me until you think its reasonable? One prompt? Or a certain amount of resources i put in?

Don't get me wrong, i'm curious on when you think a certain quality is reached. I ask this myself too. Like i have a lot of experience in the area of game development, game mechanics, programming and usability. Now the game itself i adjust constantly because i have a lot of strong opinions.

But will this ever be something i might release for free and people get a benefit out of this?

Nope.

We are in the ara of commoditization and we just have to learn handling it.

And its not just AI 'slop' making it so, its also A LOT of peole having acess to so much more.

The indiegame scene got crazy. As soon there is one new game concept, hundreds of small adjustments to this idea are popping up.

The sorting game thing? Has now a lot of clones/variations.

AI adds more of this for sure, but its not the underlying issue.

I would like a more curated version of this or a more 'hard room setup' because brains can remember things better with more context.

Going up to the xy ara or through a japanese space helps.

Nonetheless, nice expeirment.

I'm happy to discuss this properly until we get a combined view or a better discussion.

You started with this statement: "It is their capacity for consciousness (however nascent) that makes them human, and therefore, sacred." without any real argument.

I criticie this directly because saying something is 'sacred' is not a conclusion. You are either going in the direction of anthropocentrism or spiritual humanism but thats it. The discussion has ended for you. You accepted in your thinking that humans are 'sacred'. Without an real logical argument.

Its the same thing a lot of people just do. They stop when they found something which looks satisfactory to them.

You state then in the next comment, that you also thinking through stuff like this for a while and argue that just because others came to the same conclusion than you, that this is correct / more correct than others.

You don't explain how 'sacred' is not just a goalpost and you argue that others have the same result makes it valuable.

I counter argue that just because historical people say this, doesn't mean anything.

"Logic does not have any bearing on what is sacred; meaning arises from a domain of experience that lies outside logic."

This is uterly ignorant in my opinion. If you believe this, you are BELIEVING but you are not arguing and its not logical. There is no way for us than to align because either we have the same 'experience' or not.

But logic is more and its narrow. The cognitive bias link to wikipedia i send, is the 'experience' part you speak of. We has humans need to surpass these 'experiences' and think more rational about them to fix them to understand when and why we make mistakes.

Thsi is the reason why someone might believe in a wonder vs. the other person questioning it and finding out that the tears of that one statue has a logical conclusion and has nothing to do with a wonder. We are fundamentaly flawed as a human.

I really try to understand you, i really try to convay my thinking.

I came to the logical conclusion of nihilism by 14. I'm not living as a nihilist but i fully accepted it. I do understand how people perceive this world including your viewpoint of sacred, this doesn't change the underlying principle of our being: We are fundamentaly a result of evolution, consciousness might just be an emerging feature of the complexity of our brain / neural network and can happen in a machine. We do not know how/why the universe was created in what space and why we exist. There is no conlusion to this and we just don't know.

Our uniqueness and everything which had to come together to form us, is special because I or you define it as special which is okay but thats a self defined property of some people. Biological speaking / evolutionary speaking, we do have patterns in our brain which support this due to very basic evolutionary things.

My personal system would be based on resource points: Define the amount of resources our planet has in a sustainable fashion, everyone gets the same and can use them how they like.

Technocracy had this already in form of Energy accounting.

Unfortunate something like communism sounds similar and just because we have seen that it didn't work due to technology issues (planning ahead without necessary information is hard?) and no gain of function which would push people, the basic idea is similiar to energy accounting.

Another thing this system needs might be a way for the system to protect itself.

I do think so that a society as diverse as ours will continue struggling with this as long as we do not give abundance resources to everyone or educate/indoctrinate people the 'right' way.

One thought I have regarding AI: IF it happens to slow, people will get used to the status quo and inequality and we will see a future of a handful rich people and a lot more poor people. IF it happens too fast, people might be more desprate to standup and demand something better.

Gaming the market for funds. Playing a human to leverage services.

Basic version of this is already doable: run some cryptoshit on the ML clusters they ML models run on. Use compute to design the plan, the chip etc. Then executing by communicating with humans and services through email.

Doesn't matter at this point i would say.

Alone the massive usage of us every day produces a massive amount of signals.

I build something and claude does something stupid? "hey thats not what i meant! Do this instead!" "Okay" <<< This is a signal.

The mathematician being unhappy about something from claude? Another signal.

This alone gives you enough progress i would argue. But additional its clear that certain tasks are worth to pay experts for for teaching one central AI once instead of every single human who needs to do the task.

IF RL is also working well, we are just faster f*ed than otherwise.

I think we crossed plenty of lines were we will not get back to.

Software development for example as a task is done. And AI is continuesly reducing the price of more and more tasks every day.

This math breakthrough also shifts something significant: Its now a lot clearer that investment means money into energy to run AI.

Money + Energy = progress

I don't see it plateuing at all. We know how to progress. We broke through a wall we hit. Like the system wasn't able to optimize/automate everything because the tools were not there. It was still cheaper and easier to hire people for a LOT of things.

Now AI fills this gap.

You will see the commodification of everything in the next 15 years. High complex tasks? commodity. Physical labor? commodity.

It is progress on another / the next evolutionary later: A AI/AGI/ASI system.

Which either replaces us in the long term, augments us or makes us better (gentherapy).

Its a capitalistic issue, not a company/technology issue.

If we would have discovered this breakthrough of LLM/ML on scale in a non capitalistic world, we would all work together advancing it faster than it goes right now for the benefit of humanity.

And I don't live forever (at least for now) i def want to see were this road is heading.

Its a conflict of interest for sure, a cnflict of the future of a lot of humans

No this is not an issue. As long as their is a way of verifying things, they do the same thing with creating novel things as humans: Searching through an infinite space of possibilities opitmized by knowledge.

They combine things, verify it and if it works and progresses the problem, they created something new.

No but they have training data which teaches them certain amount of complex understandings and just not math but also physics. So this is one huge advantage.

And then they are for sure able to fill their context based on 'smart search on top' to actually progress further.

Nope. I spend enough time of thining about this aspect as well. Including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias Cognitive Biases etc.

Nature is not inhernatly good and evoluitionary behaviours are also not. You have to separate yourself from this base and think through it holisticly.

You just don't break through through your indoctrinational thinking.

And while religious people see humans as 'sacred', religous people have very little issues of being on the wrong side, constantly.

You remember the pope of the christians? Ratzinger? The figure of moral and ethik of religion for a while? You know what he said regarding the abuse of children? I will tell you: They thought this wouldn't create a lasting impact and felt its more critical to keep the facade for the church than speaking up about the abuse.

How many religious people want humans dead?

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm not a person who hurts people i'm a person who helps. At least in 2 situation were no one else was helping.

And you don't understand that my point of discusison is not a point of the masses but a logical one.

It doesn't matter if religion also sees this as sacred because religion and religous people stoped thinking and moved their goal post to "the bible says and god".

Alone having your goal post at this point is a strong indicator that the thinking is flawed.

We are still in the middle of the AI race. Commodity hardware is easy to use, can do everything and is fast enough.

Your optimized hardware chip might be obsolete before its back from the fab.

SOTA Frontiermodelhardwarechip is a benchmark point of a potential model slow down.

Google is doing it right now under project Frozen v2 which should be ready by 2028? which is either just a small experiment or flexible enough and thats why it takes so long for it to happen.