FeepingCreature
FeepingCreature on Hacker News
I suspect a lot of this is not (just) capability but bravery. A human would be daunted by even a small neural net; the task would seem too challenging to be worth attempting. Astra, fearless, just assumes an answer exists and then tries to reverse and execute on it.
And now imagine the introduction of iron has led to crowbars that make smashing doors a lot easier. Now it is quite unreasonable to account the reduction in smashing doors to iron, when the previous improvement was also due to iron.
Well, so? Then the prediction market would also price expected resolution time.
There is no problem and no contradiction between your views.
If you want it, and you think it's easy to replace, try to reproduce it with AI.
If you find that it is harder than you thought, then go back and pay for the original.
> It’s much more likely, imo, that local AI models will completely destroy the entire business model of inference.
You're massively underestimating how much cheaper it is to serve models in a datacenter than at home.
> By your own definition it is impossible to achieve profitability without an ever increasing amount of money flowing into it.
No, what? No. This is just a total misreading of what I'm saying. It's extremely easy to achieve profitability. It just requires your business to stop chasing more profitability. The problem is just that then the other businesses who are still chasing more profitability will eat its lunch. It's a market shape that easily supports n-1 bankruptcies but never n bankruptcies.
But the reason the cost is ever increasing is the steeply ascending quality. There's no (non-doom) scenario where this game does not end with profitable cheap tokens. Wherever it'll stop scaling, it'll be profitable to serve tokens at that scale. And of course if it doesn't stop scaling, it's the singularity and all this thought of profits is quite secondary.
An industry cannot fail because it's too successful.
edit: Other explanation. The industry has found a moneyprinter. It prints money, and several companies are building them and printing money. However, each one of those companies is cashflow negative, because they're all trying their desperate best to build an even larger moneyprinter. Why? If they don't build it and the next company over does build it, and it works, then company 1 is differentially outcompeted. what's more, the more expensive each moneyprinter is, once a company gets strongly ahead the second company won't get the financing to keep up with that one. ... But it's still moneyprinters. This is not an economic race that ends up with "and thus everyone stopped printing money."
Even the best ones really aren't very good at this yet.
Sure but this doesn't answer whether medical systems will see a lift from using AI.
(They will. It's very well suited to it, once the garbage gets filtered out. It's not like it's a scam as a whole, it's just a field that's very scammy rn.)
If you're on a GPU and take five minutes for an image, something is wrong: either you're not actually running on GPU, or you're generating at way too high resolution. Open models work best at not far above 1024x1024.
Not a mathematician, but I don't think there's any point to trying to put it in code at this point. Improvements seem to be coming rapidly at the moment.
1. Well, mathematics isn't other industries
2. It really doesn't work well in other industries either.
In my experience Opus 5.5 is good but Opus very big picture plan mode to Qwen 3.8 code is so massively massively cheaper (I'm on API) that there's no competition. This is as of a week ago.
Fully agreed. We're not gonna get out of this without something a bit crazy, and CO2 capture at least has an actionable theory: "what if power was 10x cheaper". That's imaginable at least, much more so than "what if we committed a few genocides" as was proposed elsewhere in this thread.
All of those are in open-source engines. I'm not convinced they have that much of an advantage.
It seems to me the obvious answer to this is "app copy per user" (possibly with os-level dedup) and "undelete"? What do they actually do instead?
But if people don't have deterministic influence over the nondeterminism then this doesn't actually give you influence over your own behavior.
People do not have influence over quantum effects.
(To clarify the Gwernpost, nicotine isn't primarily addictive but habit forming. So for instance if you get your nicotine from cigarettes you end up habituated to smoking cigs, and so on. But you can use it to habituate to anything else as well.)
I guess this can happen with superposition? The neuron that encoded the color-of-sky question was reactivated for something else, giving it enough weight flow to bring its color-of-sky connections back?
Kind of seems like you should have noticed this by your ~/.local/bin PATH not working?
Lemme use this opportunity to link Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/Available for linux, mobile, online and of course static-linked exe. Also as opposed to Windows Minesweeper, mines.exe is guaranteed to be solvable every time.
If you're already proposing an AI using material in space, "big" and "unlikely" have stopped correlating.
Diffusion works differently. Nobody is asserting that diffusion is AGI or on a path to AGI.
3. Material
4. The sun, which we kinda depend on.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49928566Show HN: Giving Opus 5.5 a simulated paint canvas
It's well possible already, it's just inefficient.
Also of course you can (and always could) negative-prompt "artist signature". Or have the LLM give it a checkup with edit tools. This is all just a massive skill issue on the part of the people who set up the tooling.
BRouter models this as inertia, I believe.
> Sure. Issue is, no one is providing on how much it actually costs to burn these tokens.
You can assume Openrouter open-model providers serve at or above margin, because there's no branding so there's no reason to do it unless you can be profitable. If the Anthropic models are anywhere in that ballpark, they're very comfortably profitable on API.
It's especially funny because they are the people that the article is making fun of.
It is a parody site.
> OpenAI CEO Sam Altman celebrated the breach as an “alarming threat to cybersecurity.”
Aiui most people who push for "biology is quantum" specifically want the large-scope effects because they're grasping for it as a way to justify why consciousness is special. Cells are of course plenty quantum at the scale of molecular interactions.