entropi

> Current AI is never going to do better than us in every category, it can only do better in us in categories where it's possible to generate an infinite amount of verifiable synthetic data (math and programming).

Even if this turns out to be true, I don't think it will necessarily matter.

So much money was already burned, by so powerful people in incestuous relationship with governments, that I don't think this is an important point anymore.

>Is this a logical conclusion or is this correlation in a time when companies in myriad industries are pushing rent over buying because margins are so much better?

I think both, I would argue that right now, giving hardware into the hands of your customer presents a much bigger risk nowadays. Streaming is obviously the better option for margins, and now it is basically the only option to keep the product under control. Also now that consumer GPU/memory is getting more and more expensive, I think it has become realistically the only way forward.

Yes, but a little bit of lobbying and regulatory capture goes a long way.

At first, you provide the services for 20% the price and price out the competition. Also, human doctors also make mistakes, no? Do this long enough so that the long and costly process of educating physicians is no longer sustainable anymore. Then you regulate hard, after all, it is healthcare. Not anyone can and should just do it.

Then, once you are the only option left, jack up prices. We have seen this exact scenario play out many many times. This is just another version of it. And since trillions have already been burned, you can be sure that there will be a lot of desperation to make it happen.

I would prefer my doctor to have access to LLMs, just as I would prefer them to have access to google.

What I meant is different though. I fully expect to no longer have access to human doctors in a decade or two. Instead, LLMs will be the doctors. Likely government accredited ones. And my point is that in time, whether the LLM doctor is better or worse will not matter. Same with judges, same with the surveillance camera evaluators and private message examiners. I am saying we no longer have any mechanisms to stop these things from happening.

I am afraid that ship has already sailed, and we will have to live with the consequences.

At this point; I see no other scenario than having LLM doctors, LLM judges, etc. No matter the quality. We will get replaced. And if they do a worse job, nobody cares. If they do a better job, also nobody cares. Maybe you can pay more and get high effort model as your doctor.

These companies might not be the ones, my expectation is that they will be scrapped for their pieces, the losses distributed to the bagholders/taxpayers. But some version of them will.

This might be pure cyncisism with no positive value, but really I think we have no mechanisms left to stop going down on this trajectory.

I think the bigger issue is that "we" won't be doing any deciding. A handful of oligarchs will. As the technology becomes better than us, I am afraid we will learn that we are (at least seen as) technology as well. And the owner of the better technology will decide what to do with the inferior technology. I don't see anyone trying to design the roads for horse carriages, so I don't understand why would anything change for humans' understanding.

That is, if things go in the current trajectory. I don't see any reason why anything would change though.

Using SUVs are definitely worse for safety as well, and it does not require a huge overhaul of the transportation infrastructure, a few new technologies to be invented, replacing ~all the existing cars, etc. etc. But no-one takes the comparatively basically free steps to remove/reduce SUVs.

Lets not forget that its all about the profits, and if we truly want to save lives there are more cost-efficient ways than what some tech sales-people peddle.

You are dismissing this as "unhelpful negativity", but are not addressing in any way the obvious (and rather malicious, I would say) PR play that parent comment points out.

This is exactly the message, and I for one welcome the anti-cool-aid sentiments being very visible in public spaces.

> This literally can change how we use internet making advertisement economy internet runs on obsolete.

Hmm, so I will pay to see websites that have ads. This may or may not be fine and solve some other problems (like paywalling AI agents), but lets not be naive. It won't replace ads, in most cases it will just be another stream.

Yeah but the money I receive is almost completely decoupled from the value I create. In fact, this can only reduce the value of my time since now my expertise is perceived to be commodified.

But if they do the work for me, then my time is less valuable. If my time is less valuable, I won't pay more to save more of my time.

> AIslop is of higher quality than devslop on average.

Is it? If by higher quality, you mean commenting properly, sticking to naming conventions etc. I can agree. But to me, AIslop looks like it lacks "intentionality" of code written by devs, no matter how bad they are at naming things and sticking to conventions.

i.e. people who are adequately good at their jobs usually do things for a reason, and they can explain it. Even if you don't find it agreeable, it usually is consistent.

Passing judgement on the schadenfreude aside, I don't think its a community moderator's responsibility to make sure the violator's attempts are cost-efficient.

I think the point is not difficulty but rather recklessness. I don't think other large players lack the ability or the deep pockets to do the same, but they might be lacking on the recklessness department for whatever reason. That reason, whatever it may be, might be the interesting part here.

Seems correct. Weird thing is, every single piece of software that I use feels like it got shittier in the last couple of years.

But I am not using more software. I mean their source codes might have gotten larger, but the count of tools/services I use is basically the same.

So this feels more like giving up nice handcrafted fountain pens for bic pens. But I am still using a couple pens overall. So no added convenience, just shittier quality.

> We’re so so far away from tools here that are anywhere near being trustworthy and accurate. And yet we (including myself) are chunking out code after code. It’s so bizarre.

I think one more thing this whole LLM charade in the last few years has revealed is that no-one really cares. As long as it "looks" like it works, turns out, its all fine.

There are other, more focused (also arguably better at explaining) videos on explaining how it works. Here is one: https://youtu.be/dxmxIsoV_Xo

It took a while and several explanations for it to completely click for me. The e-cvt mechanism does seem to be quite clever and simpler (at least mechanically).

I tend to view this as purely an optimization problem.

Basically all aspects of traditional values, systems in place and the whole lifestyle, established mostly after the agricultural revolution; seems to be laser-focused on increasing surviving offspring.

I feel like it should be obvious that if you take a solution that optimizes almost exclusively for x (surviving offspring), and replace it partially, optimizing for a,b,c (industrial output, female participation to workforce, etc.); you necessarily get a lower x in exchange for higher a,b,c.

Now it looks to me like everyone is trying to increase x back again, but without decreasing a,b,c. It seems obvious to me that you cannot do this (unless you have been doing a terrible job at optimizing before). You have to trade some value off from the other side. But in our current society, I don't see how can this happen.

>Someone needs to be involved in decision making, with real stakes if those decisions are bad.

Why though? I imagine things could also go the "google way" as well. The automated system makes the decision; and you just.. deal with the consequences if that decision is bad. We could just have an extended version of this dynamic as well: 3-4 entities with enough compute owning everything with no responsibilities; and when something goes bad, oh well. It's not like you can go to their competition, who also works the same way.

I think we saw many times that after a certain scale (after becoming, say, too big to fail), there is no bad decision you can't afford.

And how is a colony on mars necessary?

Unless you don't own the data centers yourself, you only get what they allow you you to. And those gatekeepers, lawyers and licencing agreements; while certainly not perfect, did let people monetize their intellectual work. Also, I think it is incredibly naive to think the owners of the compute and the energy won't play the hardest gatekeeper the world has seen, when the conditions become right.

I think the problem will be with enforcement. To be honest I don't see any way to stop this kind of thing from happening. I predict the slow decline of open source projects, sadly.

I got the same impression as the parent post. Even if its not AI-generated, the text reads like a politician's speech at a lot of places. Talks a lot, says little.

The idea itself was very cool, so I endured it. But it was not a pleasant read.

I mean sure it is fun to pick one company and hate it, but this is not the point being argued here.

But the point here is that a few companies are outbidding everyone else, hoarding shittons of compute and putting it into their data centers, to rent to people. This is effectively taking compute ownership away from consumers and centralizing compute i.e. un-democratising.

Apple outcompeting other companies to put their products into the hands of regular people is vastly different.

ah, so what you are saying is this: now you can buy your own specialized hardware, which is realistically produced and sold by a single company on earth, compete with ~3 of the largest multinational corporations to do so (consider the ram prices lately, to get a sense of the effect of this competition), spend tens of thousands in the process, and run your 'own' model, which someone spends millions to train and makes it open for some reason (this is not a point about its existence, its about its reliability. I don't think its wise to assume the open models will be roughly in line with SOTA forever). This way, by spending roughly 1-2 orders of magnitude more, you can eliminate a handful of SaaS products that you use.

Sorry, I don't see this happening, at least not for the majority. Even if it does, it would still be arguably centralizing.

So you are saying now that you can bypass a lot of solutions offered by a mix of small/large providers by using a single solution from a huge provider, this is the opposite of a centralization of power?

Roofs do, though.

And I feel like the difference between, say;

- Paying for a ticket/dvd/stream to see a Ghibli movie

- Training a model on their work without compensating them, then enabling everyone to copy their art style with ~zero effort, flooding the market and diluting the value of their work. And making money in the process.

should be rather obvious. My only hypothesis so far is that a lot of the people in here have a vested interest in not understanding the outrage, so they don't.

Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.

I feel the same way.

Yet people are using AI for therapy, listening to AI-written novels read by AI, gladly watching AI-made slop. There seems to be real actual demand for it. Feels like total insanity to me; but here we are and facts are facts.

I guess whether the emperor is wearing clothes or not never actually mattered.