lelanthran

> You'd open your phone and nothing would work, not even the connection to the cellular network since your phone company has management components running on AWS.

I'm pretty confident, sitting here on a different continent, that I wouldn't have that problem at all.

> Intel GPUs are pretty worthless right now for inference, let alone training.

Why? Is it hardware limitations or deficient software stack?

In any case, as nvidia is ignoring the gaming market, AMD and Intel both have a vacuum to fill, but I don't see them doing it.

Intel, especially, should have rushed out gaming cards as soon as nvidia shortages were predictable (2023, at least).

The problem I have is not that an old GPU can't be used for gaming (it can), it's that I am forced to upgrade from a perfectly working 660ti that once played far cry 3, 4 and 5 (and every other game I threw at it) because my kernel doesn't have support anymore (older drivers don't work on a newer kernel).

A new GPU with the power of a decade-old GPU but all the latest software support would be great. Right now, if I want to see certain web-pages (WebGL), I have to buy a new GPU, but there isn't any low-priced GPUs anymore.

> This is hyperbole. Do you really think an LLM will try to rewrite the past? Come on…

Didn't they already try this last year?

That link prompts for a signup.

> There is probably a power advantage of being able to convert n filetypes to m different formats where n and m are very large.

If they've been in business this long, they must have, by now, internal filetypes for specific classes of formats. For example, all rgb files first convert to an RGB format, and then to the destination format. Or, all transcription first convert to an internal format, and then to the destination format.

Not sure how you'd handle .ps or .pdf files in this way, though.

> I expect people here to root for the future. In the future AI overtaking humans is inevitable.

I can't really make sense of this sentiment, because I don't really understand what it is you mean by "overtake".

Do you expect AI to replace human's who think for a living?

Well, it ran on my 9600GT, which I used in a desktop from 2016 and recently used that desktop with 16GB RAM for the last few weeks.

I was unable to see any site that used webgl, which is almost all games site and many charting and graphing apps.

> Their S-1 says they're not operating at a loss.

Where did you read this? I though it was a confidential filing (but I am open to receiving links to the S-1 that was filed).

At the point you starts asking to prove a negative, like "Can you prove that there's no God?", you should have the self-awareness to realise that no argument will convince you, because you are proceeding on the power of belief and belief alone.

If you don't have the self-awareness to realise that you are asking the same question as "Can you prove there's no God?", then I'm afraid no proof will ever be sufficient for you.

> I would expect code written by the latest frontier models with a "find all security issues make no mistakes" pass to be more secure than average human code written in the pre-AI era (not a high bar).

"If you write code as cleverly as you can, you are, by definition, too stupid to debug it."

Do you disagree with this? Because if you don't, then the rate of bugs/RCEs in a completely AI-written-software world will be exactly the same as the rate of bugs in a completely human-written-software world.

A combination of human-authorship + AI-review, with absolutely no AI-written code is going to have the lowest rate of bugs, because there is always one entity who understands the code (because they wrote it) and one entity who is smarter than the author who can find bugs.

The AI-generated code I see from SOTA models is absolute spaghetti, and they start running into problems spotting bugs after even a small number of refinements/changes to the software (say, 50).

The problem with all this spaghetti is that they are quick to write something that even they can't easily read. Even mediocre but experienced humans are not so eager to write something that they can't easily debug.

IOW, for any non-trivial problem, with AI-generated code you are guaranteed to get spaghetti that it cannot understand. With humans, it's only a probability that that will happen.

> No no no, don’t burst that AI bubble just yet. I haven’t finished all my side-projects.

You'll be fine; the GPUs will be sold off for pennies on the dollar, and if you can't run one at home there are plenty of people who will buy them to host for cost of hosting +5% markup.

> The stock exchange is the Adam Smith way of directing the assignation of resources to the most efficient company, and it's supposed to be liquid enough to allow fine-grained decisions.

So? OAI isn't on any stock exchange right now. Their value is not determined purely by supply and demand.

> Why do I sense a schadenfreude here? It's like people are rooting for their failure.

You sound surprised. Why?

After all, they have been selling their product on the basis of driving the value of human labour as close to zero as possible (your labour included). Why wouldn't people want such an endeavour to fail?

> The amount itself is probably meaningless. The fact that there was a shortfall at all is, for me, the signal.

It is a signal, but I am not sure what it is signalling...

It could be signalling that all surplus money has been consumed already (i.e. the investment class has no more money left to invest).

It could signal that the specific class of investment is no longer desirable (i.e. the investment money is there, but has no appetite for token-providers).

It could mean that OpenAI, specifically, is considered not worth committing to anymore.

We should be looking at how the entire class of token providers is doing; if the rest are still getting interest from investors but OAI is not, then it's just OAI that is in trouble. If the entire class is not getting the money they are asking for, then maybe the peak of the bubble is reached (or the surplus money is all invested).

> No, they sell different products in the same category. You are basically saying Google and Bing as the same product when Bing is superior to Google search in some non-critical metrics.

In this case, it's pretty much the same product.

I mean, if you were to purchase electricity from two different providers (1x Nuclear plant and 1x Coal plant), would you actually care which one is being used to run your dishwasher on any given day?

> From first principles I think youre right, but also Anthropic is making something like 80% margins.

I'm skeptical that they are operating at anything but a loss. 80% margins on a specific product (API) might still not cover the losses on the other products (Free tier, subscriptions) and their expenses (operating costs, training, research, etc).

The counter argument is that a high cost to publish on steam hurts the slop devs who want to throw out 15 games a week, not the indie who works for a year on a single game.

> Every time you rely on the current working directory, that's invisible state then.

And you think adding to it will improve things?

What's the point of basing decisions on outliers?

> Is using these less-intuitive colour encodings made more practical through the use of CSS variables?

I find it more intuitive: when I want to mix colors, or algorithmically choose colors, only oklch works to give decent results.

Maybe you want to severely darken/lighten a color on a page when the user hovers over it - doing it in RGB or HSL results in a color that does not go with the existing colors. Doing it in OKLCH does.

I am willing to believe it happened the same way goblins crept in.

> So maybe this is a bit of good news?

How is it good news?

Consumer searches for $FOO. $FOO does not show up in the search results.

At this point, the search is useless to users.

> As a concrete example: What the queer community wants is do become more accepted as a normal part of societies. Telling them "you're not welcome here, but feel free to promote at pornhub with the other freaks" would be the exact opposite.

That's not a bad example; what would the other "freaks" be in this situation? Transgenders? Furries?

The IRL people I know who are the L, G and B in LGB<insert rest of alphabet here>... are most definitely not on board with being lumped in, as a group, with transgenders. Or furries.

> Who gets veto powers?

I dunno; I never addressed that.

I'm saying that, in any discussion, I am not willing to accept it as established fact that some $NEWTHING is progress just because its a new thing.

The conversations and arguments I am seeing in favour of AI is along those lines - "it is change, therefore it is progress". I am saying that I dispute the argument even if the conclusion is unclear at this moment in time.

> You should. Maybe they have it open now just to destroy competition and then they close it. Now you have a closed system, with no alternatives.

I don't get this logic. Rather than have an open system that maybe gets closed in the future, you'll use a system that is closed right off the bat?

Explain how using closed-off stuff from the very start is better than using open stuff that maybe gets closed in the future.

Pretty large distortion, in the case of this blogger.

He produces much more shareholder value.

He works much more harder.

He is much more tired.

Exactly why does he think this is a good deal for him? Because he's VP of blah?

The whole AI-boosterism is from people convinced that if only they can maximise shareholder value, their lot in life would improve.

> A note on how this article was written: AI helped me pull and analyze my GitHub contribution data, build the chart and draft this article. The experience, decisions and opinions are mine.

Carefully omitted: who or what actually produced the text.

This is just a dishonest way of saying he had a ghostwriter.

> We can't even have a conversation about extended unemployment benefits, retraining credits or lamplighters transitioning to utility workers, which is what happened with the "basket of jobs"?

That's all we've been doing while labelling it "progress".

I am pointing out that not all changes are progress. I am not claiming that all changes are not progress.

I program almost daily with only bold, italics and grey (for comments) in my vim rules for highlighting.

I can read my code just fine.

Anecdotally, it's not representative of your experience.

But... Rewrite-it-in-Rust is a meme, while rewrite in Go is not.