anonylizard
I sincerely am curious of the education that produces sentences like this. On one hand it is articulate and educated, on the other hand its amazing that one can think China is doing this out of charity and not wiping out its competitors one after the other.
Zuckerburg has already realized that local social networks will be utterly replaced by AI chatbots, which are superior in like 99% of cases.
It doesn't matter if others find "Facebook" icky, because the people who would find it icky, don't use facebook anyways. The critical factor is getting a new group of users onboard, to form a sustainable core of users.
And your scientific context is a distinct minority for python now. Most new development for python is for data/AI. Considering LLMs get updated every quarter, and depreciated every year, there is no appetite for code that doesn't get updated for 5 years.
Nvidia and AMD were low-end vs high-end. In the end Nvidia won a total victory by ditching low margin distractions like building GPUs for consoles, and focused solely on higher end PC GPUs that could dually act as accessible research chips.
The poster added valuable information, that is interesting and not self-evidently obvious to the average person who doesn't think much about restaurants, that makes the forum more useful to others?
Traditionally you want to build a moat with name recognition, established customer base etc. OpenAI has absorbed huge losses to serve consumers at below inference cost.
But its not clear if that has advantaged OpenAI or not. Turns out most AI customers are only loyal to the most intelligent model. So if a competitor releases a better model, the shift away can be extremely rapid.
So SSI probably is a bet on that, to just develop the model in private, and not waste time and energy on deployment, name recognition, go to market, enterprise sales etc. Have a decisive model advantage, and customers will crash your door trying to get it.
GPT-3: Useful as autocomplete. Still error prone, but vastly better than any pre-AI autocomplete
GPT-4: Already capable of independently coding up simple functions based on natural language.
O3-mini: Can code in say top 5% of codeforces.
There's a 2 years gap between each of them.
More over, intelligence has a superexponential return, 90IQ->100IQ < 100IQ->110IQ in terms of returns.
For all the supposed panic and importance of this process, the poster didn’t do even a google search of this issue
You say government is not like code, then what exactly is it? Can you describe it in an effective way? Or are you just going to raise your hand up and say there's nothing we can do about it, nothing we can do about the $2 trillion/year titanic deficit?
Historical governments often needed little beyond an army and a tax collection system. And tax collection system was primarily data gathering and analysis, since if you knew how much property someone owned, you can easily tax them for an appropiate amount.
The tech way of thinking has proven extremely successful in many industries already. That's why tech companies (and tech adjacent ones, like say quant trading, or even index fund trading) have been so economically dominant, and utterly kicked out the traditional MBAs from their pedestals.
Stop being a self hating programmer who despises the mentality of tech.
Even in day to day interaction, forcing someone to be silent, is far more of a gentler 'social action' than forcing someone to speak.
Are they not part of the tech community now? You highly overestimate the political homogeneity of the tech community, because opposing voices were previously so shut down. You would be surprised by what your co-workers are thinking deep down.
Europe will not spend even 0.1% of its pension/welfare fund on big research bets. The private investors their will only want real estate investments, not fancy wancy "VC".
Young talent will flow one way from other countries to the US, because they've already seen what the grass is like on their side.
Money can force people to work, out of the necessity of survival. What it buys is reliability. You can force a toilet cleaner to come to work day after day, and the toilets stay clean.
But human progress, social progress, economic growth, does not solely come from people grinding through their jobs. It comes from people 'giving it their all', look at the great scientists, Newton, Von Nuemann, all the people at bell labs etc. These people create titanic economic value in their wake, and they are motivated by passion, which heavily mixes altruism with self interest.
Indeed, the 'developed economies' are precisely the ones that also allow 'care' to scale, that's why we have social welfare, that's why we have free education.
Its that 'Care' doesn't scale, its that its impossible to centrally monitor and control. People in the third world work harder than the first world, and are 10% as rich, because no one in their societies care.
It is only after stocks suffer severe shocks, does private equity spring into action, and discipline executives via the threat of acquisition & firings.
So its is actually executives that can be shortsighted, not an ultra-long-termist passive investment dominated US investor base.
Claude is not 100x for any typical software work, but the biggest gains come from precisely 'non-typical work', which is previously impossible.
Imagine a domain expert, who knows a niche super well with all the weird edge cases and untapped demand. Hiring a developer for it doesn't work because.
1. The communication costs are too high, the developer won't know the business niche in depth enough to make a good product.
2. The niche is not profitable enough to risk hiring a developer.
Now LLMs allows the solo non-technical founder to make a MVP app, and put it to market to test, for very little cost and risk. Sure the app is not really extendable, may have to be heavily rewritten to expand and maintain, but hiring a developer then, will be a much lower risk task.
It doesn't even reduce developer employment this way, as now there's a ton more niche use cases being opened up, and becoming profitable enough to support developers.
As such, only nuclear AI subs may be viable, since that gives the strategic advantage of a submarine that doesn't need to resurface for like years. But putting nuclear reactors in an autonomous AI system sounds like a terrible idea.
Human societies have spent millenia developing the infrastructure to produce reliable/trustworthy soldiers. AI is not nearly at that level in terms of trustworthiness/fault tolerance, even if they will quickly be as smart as soliders.
There are specific 'counters' like pikes, fortifications etc, but they only trade effectively against head on charges. Cavalry still held the advantage of tactical mobility, which meant they dominated reconnaissance, can pursue and annihilate defeated enemies, can retreat gracefully etc.
There may be no counters to drones except for more drones. Or the counter may have to be highly strategical, such as devastating hack-based attacks that may involve use of advanced and dangerous AIs (Cyberpunk Blackwall...).
Artilleries also had no counter for like 50 years. And completely reshaped military doctrine and strategy, made WW1 into a slog etc. WWII found a way to 'beat' artillery by armored thrusts to get behind them, but that is not easily achievable.
All the strategic decisions of western militaries is based on the sheer expensiveness of their foot soldiers, which means reluctance to fight ground wars, extreme aversion to casualties etc.
It also meant advanced militaries generally shrunk massively in terms of soldier count, ending conscription, making the existing forces more elite and more equipped (Since the meat solider is so expensive anyways).
So helicopters, given their decreasing cost effectiveness, is likely to entirely disappear as a tactical weapon. They will be transport only going forward, or some sort of a big drone carrier.
The main issue is, NASA for political reasons, has to keep the delusion of the 'have 2 suppliers'. Boeing is clearly nonviable anymore, but as you said, it has tremendous influence in US congress, so NASA pays them billions.
NASA's programs would be simpler if they simply just dumped all the money to SpaceX, but that could cause longer term issues. The other solution would be partnering with Airbus as the backup supplier, but that would cause political earthquake.
Boeing is clearly undergoing systemic collapse in engineering ability, so anything Boeing has to be treated with extreme suspicion. Its like hiring a 3-time-felon to babysit, like you can do it, but there will be 0 tolerance for any deviance.
Most of the value generated by startups is highly concentrated in the few that succeed. So naturally the industry should optimize itself to go big or go home, not penny pinch. That's also, why they hire expensive engineers rather than offshored developers, because speed matters more than cost.
As for non-tech companies. Their demand is more stable in the long run, but they are not tolerant of outages. Amazon cannot have its servers go down during a big sale, too many physical ongoing costs that gets wasted for every second the central nervous system is down. So the cloud is good for its reliability.
Historically, the main economic impetus for centralized government, is to coordinate the construction of irrigation infrastructure. The more dependent a society is on one big river (Ancient China/Egypt), the more centralized it becomes.
Its also a make or break period for generative AI. If I was at Nvidia and owned stock options, I'd certainly give it my all to ensure Nvidia can make hay while the sun shines.
15 FPS is also irrelevant. Gaming GPUs are going to be dominated by raytracing power for the future, once you go raytracing you can't go back.
It reminds of people to not be the 'pig' to be butchered, to know that their greed or lust could be manipulated by an organization behind that screen, and that they are a pig walking into a slaughterhouse willingly.