azan_

Yes, voters are very frequently wrong and support lots of policies that end up hurting everyone, such as rent controls.

It’s a bad argument. AI isn’t single use. Current iteration of AI is already there and serving it is cheap. So you get great tool for detecting these issues in the future at low cost. Without AI the cost wouldn’t really decrease with time. And also it costs me 200$ now to find these bugs. I don’t think I could hire software engineer for that much.

Bullish*

> SV execs shredded any chance of cheap public cooperation by presenting like cartoonishly evil, patronizing, greedy big corporate bad guys from some shitty legal dramedy.

Did they though? From what I’ve read the places where they build get lots of money and infrastructure (not only DC-related) from them.

And imagine if you just stole electricity and GPU. It would be $0 vs 1639.50... The bubble becomes even more obvious!

I get people who said things like that like year ago, but nowadays it's a laughable position. Solving millenium problem means nothing nowadays? Exponential increase in CVE is nothing?

> It will not happen because the rich will always keep standards of living of the average and poor people just at the low level that they will not rebel.

Could you explain your exact line of thinking?

No, this one is just flippant response to "AI psychosis" label, sorry I though it was too obvious to explain.

> He is one of the people that brought about this situation.

Yeah, sure... What the hell are you talking about? Do you think that if not Tao we would not have the Oct. 6th release? That's totally insane.

Propaganda for what?

Wouldn’t they have to do that even if they didn’t IPO? Also arguably after IPO hype is even more important - look at tesla valuation.

> I expect their motivation for devoting resources to solve these problems will dramatically drop as soon as they IPO. Maths is just a convenient vanity metric for OpenAI to demonstrate progress, but long term progress in mathematics has no commercial value to them.

And why would IPO remove incentive that's present pre-IPO? Somehow math progress will influence price at IPO but won't influence stock price post-IPO? Or will they just stop caring about stock price once they are public. None of these options makes any sense.

Valuing your time less than 5$ is not a statement you think it is.

Human's own warning system is awful and we've already replaced it. E.g. without using technology to measure LDL you might have no idea you are at high risk of myocardial infarction.

No, I think that nothing happened that should reduce ones belief in llms leading to agi. If you think something like this happened tell me what (so something that was not true 2 years ago and is true now, e.g. „llm architecture is just stochastic parrot so it can’t lead to agi” is not that because it’s not something that happened recently).

Of course. Run sol 6 at pro effort with internet access. Do you really believe you will see hallucinations?

Why would it be? It's really not a problem. Run sol 6 at pro effort with internet access. Do you really believe you will see hallucinations?

> I cant believe that the market still thinks LLMs are ever going to result in AGI.

"Still"? I mean if someone believed that LLMs would result in AGI, why would he change his opinion? Did something happen? I mean the progress generally exceeded expectations so far so your P(AGI) should increase, not decrease. This rant doesn't apply if you did not believe that LLM can result in AGI from the beginning of course.

The thing is - Google is fucking terrible. Gemini has nice benchmark but it's unusable, try it. There's a reason why their market share in AI is so small.

> We should really stop talking this guy, he's not a great person as far as I'm concerned.

So what? Should we talk only about good guys? Even if he's shitty person (I'm not sure if he is - maybe he's not, I'm not making this judgement) the story is still interesting.

Is it you, Ed Zitron?

Because it’s no longer a problem if you use frontier models.

> You raise everyone up simultaneously by distributing in a rational measured way.

No, see, that doesn't make sense. If you "distribute in a rational measured way" you have central planning. And central planning indeed reduces inequality but also makes everyone much poorer. Inequalities are natural consequences of free market and meritocracy. Free market and meritocracy is what's best for economic growth. And with economic growth EVERY decile gets richer.

Exactly, thanks!

Man, I really hope that eventually this technology will allow us to build beautiful housing again.

It’s not though because even though inequality is increasing, everyone is getting richer including bottom decile.

> Look at the margins for competitive generic drugs and over the counter medicine. Margins are tight.

Yes, and reducing manufacturing cost if you have tight margin has huge potential for profit.

> You don't get it. [...] A society is not "richer" because the amount of financially backed power is one concentrated set of hands.

No, you don't get it. Read again my post - I've explicately said that EVERY decile is richer.

Would you rather have richer (in real terms) society (including richer lowest decile) with larger wealth inequality or poorer society with smaller inequalities? You might argue that these are not really the only two options and that's fair, but let's assume they are. Surprisingly many people would still opt for second option. Musk was trillionaire, now he no longer is (so inequality decreased) but did it really change anything that we no longer have any trillionaire?

Extremely expensive and time consuming clinical trials. If we’d increase success rate by even few % by selecting better candidates it would be huge.