tonyrice

AMEN AMEN AMEN! This doesn't mean ai goes bust, this actually would force innovation even more. AI isn't going anywhere anytime soon. We have the CEO of OpenAI claiming that models running on consumer hardware is a waste of resources and encouraging that it should stay in big data centers that are extremely wasteful when it comes to resources. Most consumers couldn't afford to waste away their resources to run consumer models. I love technology. I have a deep-seated level of resentment of the difference in treatment these big corporations get vs the people.

Edit: Taking bailouts off the table forces discipline, it strips away the bloat and forces real efficiency.

Relate to this very deeply.

I once worked at a startup that did this. They raised over $1m+ on a slideshow and a fake mockup while convincing investors they had a working product. This company was eventually acquired and swallowed up. From what I understand it didn't make it to the market they intended.

This reminds me of PhantomJS

>We should not sell powerful chips or chipmaking equipment to China, and we should crack down on the rampant smuggling3 and workarounds used to obtain access to such chips. China has limited domestic production capacity, and therefore, due to the scaling laws, cannot build more powerful models than the US without US chips. This is the most efficient and direct way to block threat #1, and by hampering the training of models that are out of reach of US law, it also indirectly helps with threat #2.

If hardware becomes affordable for the masses, then Anthropic current business model is at risk.

Imagine regulating a programming language. I remember when Delphi, Vb6, .net, etc was used often to create Remote Access Trojans and viruses were widespread. Companies didn't compete to ban other languages. Crime is crime. What would regulating open-weight models do for people that actually intend on using these tools for crime ?

I really love this!

I'm looking forward to better open source models. Now I just need to afford the compute to run these models.

This is why I don't always use the official Gemini Web app. Lately I've found that it's more useful to utilize a CLI. I'm looking forward to the day they add MCP in the web.

Happy Father's Day!

rather interesting, except the spamming of the inappropriate messages.

I'm excited to see more OSS models

If I had an eGPU right now, I'd 100% be using Qwen

Yesterday, I gave Claude Fable 5 a very simple task. The task was to create a few components and embed them onto another page. It ended up completely missing the mark and embedding it on another page. I also noticed that it burned through an exponential amount of tokens to complete a simple task. I ended up switching back to Opus 4.8

lol :D fair enough

I was literally just thinking about the desire to have a mouseless keyboard solution yesterday.

Same here. I had a window's phone at some point. Would have loved it with a stylus.

> Everything is relative.

That makes me realize how much of society, economics and our nature is really like a current, ripples in a big ol ocean. Supply and demand baby.

At one point I remember DDR2 ECC coating like $150-$180

Looking at it from that frame, it seems reasonable.

I would assume this would set a precedent for the government to have early access to proprietary technology before it was ever released?

The appearance of genuine, authentic interest would functionally appear to be the same as the actual true nature of it. I would imagine that the more frequent those connections are, the more likely leaks will appear that in turn signals the dishonest nature of the connection.

Functionally that makes sense to me. Something has a property of infinite must mean that it is infinite in nature? What if we can infinitely debate those questions because of infinity?

Without reading the context of the article yet, I would assume this means that we've observed another seemingly infinite component of existence ?

This makes me think about how much the world really has come because of our nature to connect with each other. Small things scaling.

As absurd as it sounds, their brains had to find something to associate that context with. He gave off a signal, and they had to interpret it somehow. Maybe it was so absurd and out of context it just switched the entire context of what they were being processed at the time.

We're like walking flash drives constantly associating, downloading and updating our storage.

Disarm people with absurdity. I'd rather not test it out though

lol that brought some joy to me. Thank you for your time

One of the things that I've noticed is there's an aversion to people noticing their emotions, companies analyzing that data, "men sharing their feelings" and the way that I've come to process these things is that at the end of the day they're all signals.

For example the gentlemen that we crossed. His rage, contempt, anger, disgust, whatever it may be, was a signal and the way that we interreacted had a profound impact on the other signals that came to surface.

I believe when we look at these signals from a functional perspective and truly consider the "subjective" nature of the signals, then it makes sense that they are some of the most important signals we have.

You put your hand in hot scolding water, most people immediately take note of the signal and act accordingly.

There's been a lot of devaluation on the actual supportive and objective nature of our own emotional and cognitive signals.

The mere idea that a corporation is tracking emotional data becomes absurd because at the end of the day, we're all kind of doing that ourselves. The tone of how we associate is a bit dysfunctional if you ask me.