0x4e

I agree with people having excess memory on their computers.

What I don’t like is the idea of rationing it and making it more and more expensive when you promise an era of abundance.

No thank you.

And I’m not proposing anything. I’m simply using my imagination here.

I appreciate your points of view. I’m not trying to figure out the 12D chess these companies are playing nor I’m convinced these are the salvation of humanity. I just enjoy exploring all perspectives possible before arriving at a conclusion. It’s my defense mechanism against echo chambers.

You just made me think of LLMs as useful translators. I know they are not going to be the ones leading to the discoveries other ML mechanisms can. But LLMs are a great way to communicate though to a machine. Before it was only for those able to code, but now that problem is being resolved.

That is not to say that computer scientists are no longer useful, but it is now possible for everyone to talk to the computer and viceversa.

I said we, when I shouldn’t because I accept it. But I don’t think the majority of people what sidewalks to become bike lanes. That’s why there’s that distinction.

I guess I’m more on the side of skaters who I’ve seen get the most hate from pedestrians.

I just don’t like seeing people up in arms because someone says they don’t want a robot on the sidewalk and then the same people make yelling at skaters for doing the same thing. I guess it’s because the robots look cute and don’t need deodorant.

I still don’t understand how these are allowed to roll down sidewalks. They’re called sidewalks for a reason… they are meant for walking (acknowledging scooters and wheelchairs for those who need it to mode around) but we generally don’t accept someone on a bicycle or someone skating.

Either we let the sidewalk become a free for all or we don’t. I don’t think it’s fair to make exceptions for robots on wheels.

Maybe they can’t keep the discoveries secret… idk.

But what they can do with them can make a difference. Especially with the access to compute and resources they have compared to anyone else. So, they still have a competitive advantage.

The one current example I can think of is Google. They have Alpha Fold and Quantum Computing. I believe they’ve seen advancements to the way they work and an improvement to the speed of progress. It’s just that it’s not what it’s talked about.

I think that’s what VCs do. Only a fraction of investments succeed and the ones that do pay off big time.

Now, imagine having a mechanism that will constantly improve, so you can go from 1% success rate to 5% success rate in say a year.

I see your point. What I think could be different is the speed at which things can be done compared to conventional ways of discovery.

Think of a COVID/MRNA like solution for other areas.

Oh, I see it. I’m just thinking 5–10 years down the line not short-term volatility.

Could there be more ChatGPT moments down the line in other areas like science, genetics, space and something we haven’t considered? I think there’s a chance.

I also think AI is here to stay and there may be some confirmation bias from the community regarding open source models. It’s like someone saying back then that Linux was going to take over… (?) Open source software seems to be served for technical people. Not for the average Joe looking for an answer or help generating a social media post or help writing an email.

Great take and useful for the thought experiment.

I just feel like your taking it all as a given/fact. And maybe you’re right, but I’m not that well versed into it to say things for sure.

What I'm trying to get at is that if we’re considering a black swan event, why not consider both the bull and the bear case or even the neutral one and at least accept that we don’t know which one it will be and it may well be a coin toss…

Perhaps using “cancer” deviated things into a specific subject, but it could be anything. A drug discovery, quantum computing, etc.

Again, I’m no quantum physicist or chemist, but as a world citizen, these feel within the realm of possibilities. Just like it destroying humanity or simply just being yet another technological advancement like the computer or the internet was.

—-

I guess the people working on computers could have argued there was a 10% chance it was going to end humanity and so the people working on the internet because AI was going to come about.

—

I’d say that my final conclusion is that we don’t really know and the signals we’re getting from founders, investors, the market, here, and other people we talk to is that NOBODY KNOWS. All we can do is to continue to speculate and make bets based on hunches.

Public closed-source models remain superior on paper, to the best of my knowledge.

Now, consider they have one, two or three generations of models being tested and toyed around before being released.

Those would be the ones used for breakthroughs.

I don’t think the cure for cancer will be the result of the prompt “tell me the cure for cancer. Make no mistakes.” But instead applying real AI and ML supercharged by recent advancements to identify genetic mutations that could possibly cure cancer or other diseases.

By reading the comments I wonder if perhaps OAI & ANT are not going to be “model” companies and they are going to be the ones innovating in many fronts and cashing in for the benefits of those advancements…

What I’m trying to say here is, what if, they are staying closed strategically so they keep their most advanced models close to their chest until they make an incredible discovery. Say they cure cancer. In this case, they are taking that IP collaborating with big pharma and cashing in on the upside of such discovery.

So, what if on top of being just another enterprise and consumer product that accelerates the way we all work and live, it also becomes this factory of breakthroughs and that’s where open source models can’t compete with them.

Just speculating…

AI for me I just another balancing act. Lean too hard on it and it will be noticeable and detrimental, lean to hard away from it and you’ll be left behind by those who learn how to balance it.

I think it's important to see if this could happen on a larger scale. What if it wasn't only French supermarkets but also important supply chain chokepoints of food worldwide? What would happen to food prices?

You're right. I'm not sure.

I even thought: next time my partner gets a headache I'm just going to give her a vibrator and test it out.

Pleasure is not only about sex, it can take many forms, and us humans re the ones that really learned how to get pleasure from a lot of sources.

Good point on the first paragraphs. The why seems to be that it’s mostly about pleasure.

Although not essential for survival, pleasure seems to be programmed in us as a species, so the body evolving this to give women the balance of a complex pleasure organ to make up for the pain — in so many levels — they go through during birth.

So maybe nature was like “they suffer a lot during birth and pregnancy, let’s give them a clitoris that gives them REALLY good pleasure that the male counterpart won’t be able to ever experience or comprehend.”

I think you’d be surprised by how many people just see the vagina as a whole you stick a penis in. But agree with this not being a big mystery being unlocked.

This article feels like it's full of no big mystery being unlocked other than the clitoris non-sexual stimulation being used as pain treatment during labor, but I'm sure not as effective as just some potent pain killer.

Can “on-prem” solve this debate?

You can self-host on-prem or in the cloud.

Don’t sovereign wealth funds and pension funds also invest in VCs? So even if it’s “private” people are holding the bag?

Also, I think comparing WeWork to AI labs is not valid.

These labs have increasingly become of public interest and are shaping economies around the world, WeWork was just not at that level.

Amazon URL: https://www.amazon.com/Cyberpunks-Cyberfreedom-Change-Realit...

Original is broken…

Has anyone read this book? If so, have you done it recently? What are your thoughts on what’s being said by Leary?

It feels pretty spot on in most cases where he extrapolates the way we create, process, distribute and consume information and I can see how the development of newer technologies just enforces his hypothesis.

I know he’s infamous/famous for being dialed up in LSD most of the time, but nevertheless I’m finding this read very interesting.

I know this is not what you’re asking for, but I’d instead advise you on not using email as your primary sales vehicle.

I also know it depends on the product you’re selling.

Most often than not, email is a big pile of mess for most people, so getting their attention is just really hard.

If you can, if it’s viable, go to their office, shake their hand and pitch the product face to face.

Too far? Call and schedule a meeting.

Anyone can send an email blast to thousands of contacts. Not many have the courage to just pick up the phone or see people face to face.

Sorry I couldn’t help! But I hope this is useful :)

I wonder what the AI version of Albert Hofman will come up with.

I mostly meant humans in general. Not only CEOs. But... yes... maybe if the psychological development was better, Elon would not have been bullied, and perhaps would have been a better human.

Partially agreed. There are also just evil people that are not billionaire CEOs, and I am not sure if ALL billionaire CEOs are bad — I don't really pay too much attention to them.

There are evil people in general. And, it may be solvable if we focus on humans, the environment they grow up in, the information they consume, their psychological development, education, fitness, social environments, etc...

But, we keep focusing on the wrong thing thinking that a robot or an LLM will solve these problems for us as a society. I honetly don't thinks so...

I agree with knowing what's happening! But taking things at face value from tech companies, especially when they are at an early stage and maximizing for attention just doesn't feel right to me.

At the end of the day, bad things will happen and there's little that can be done about it. Just look around and see how things just take the path of their own whether it's violent or peaceful.

I'm not advocating for it to really show it's dangerous. I do not want yet another harmful weapon to exist. But, I think we knew what we were walking towards in the first place. So, acting surprised and then being up in arms about it feels counterproductive.

Do you really want there not be a powerful AI that doesn't turn harmful? Don't contribute to it, don't buy into it, don't use it. We might miss on the positives, but also miss on the negative aspects of it.

Humans have been doing this for years even before the advent of the internet as we know it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking]. Maybe not at a larger and automated scale allowed by AI, but this is not superhuman intelligence... this is speed super intelligence.

My interpretation is that this is just another media campaign to say "oh look how powerful our model is".