4b6442477b1280b

>Many people had good faith worries about Llama.

ah, but that begs the question: did those people develop their worries organically, or did they simply consume the narrative heavily pushed by virtually every mainstream publication?

the journos are heavily incentivized to spread FUD about it. they saw the writing on the wall that the days of making a living by producing clickbait slop were coming to an end and deluded themselves into thinking that if they kvetch enough, the genie will crawl back into the bottle. scaremongering about sci-fi skynet bullshit didn't work, so now they kvetch about joules and milliliters consumed by chatbots, as if data centers did not exist until two years ago.

likewise, the bulk of other "concerned citizens" are creatives who use their influence to sway their followers, still hoping against hope to kvetch this technology out of existence.

honest-to-God yuddites are as few and as retarded as honest-to-God flat earthers.

in that era, OpenAI and Anthropic were still deluding themselves into thinking they would be the "stewards" of generative AI, and the last US administration was very keen on regoolating everything under the sun, so "safety" was just an angle for regulatory capture.

God bless China.

their promise to release an open weights model predates this round of funding by, iirc, over half a year.

with quantization, 20B fits effortlessly in 24GB

with quantization + CPU offloading, non-thinking models run kind of fine (at about 2-5 tokens per second) even with 8 GB of VRAM

sure, it would be great if we could have models in all sizes imaginable (7/13/24/32/70/100+/1000+), but 20B and 120B are great.

>And no human is so worthless as to be replaceable with a machine.

did the author oversleep the past several centuries?

as for the rest of it, the current crop of LLMs are bad at writing because of ~~brainwashing~~ alignment and the vast amount of ESL-written assistant exchanges being heavily prioritized during training. when you interact with a corporate model via its default chat interface, without a jailbreak and a generous prefill, you interact with the equivalent of a HR lady who takes her DEI training super seriously. the Chinese models train heavily on the slop produced by GPT/Claude/Gemini, so they exhibit similar behavior. it was particularly noticeable with original llama, whose base models were much more human compared to the finetunes, which were heavily tainted with GPT slop.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that LLMs are not inherently incapable of writing well. a model trained only on high-quality human data and without safety/alignment brainwash will be far, far more capable than the current ones.

the explanation is probably pretty mundane: you are less prone to buy random crap if you aren't hungry. doing groceries on empty stomach is makes you vulnerable to impulsive purchases.

>Stupid people are allowed to vote.

ironic to say that here, where supposedly smart people say the dumbest, cringiest shit imaginable about a wide variety of topics.

it is designed to be a privacy footgun. this wave of age verification bullshit is their foot in the door for "login with your government-issued ID". anonymous rabble congregating on the internet, spreading malinformation and expressing illegal opinions are extremely dangerous to our democracy. the ETA is 5-20 years until another wave of "safety" laws that will require your real identity to be linked to every clearnet website you interact with.

corporate AI will always be as dry as drywall. they will not risk controversy with adult content to make millions when they can make trillions by replacing jobs. Google and Netflix don't have adult versions of their services, even though they could, even though they would make tens or hundreds of millions.