bigbadfeline

Before I continue, look at this video from a rich man who admits everything I said and then some, applicable to himself and others like him. Don't skip it, look at the comments too:

Chamath: I was wrong. The economy is broken

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PD-FlgD_ILw

> There are TWO sides to debt.

Strawman. Nobody claimed there's only one. My explanations considered both sides while you use banalities as distractions.

> The rest is making the same mistake as you keep making here. High inflation provides a (partial) reset.

I'm not making any mistakes, I explained why the poor gain nothing from inflation - because of their high interest rates and frequent borrowing at interest rates rising with inflation. On the other hand, the rich having plenty of collateral, borrow a lot more, locking in low interest rates for long term loans which lead to them gaining significantly from the erosion of the interest they pay. Moreover, the rich have pricing power too, they increase the price of their assets output, including rent, while they suppress wages with their wage-setting power - they control the game.

So if the rich gain from this purely financial, zero sum scheme, somebody's got to lose and there's nobody else in it besides the wage earning poor and middle class.

You mistake is to think that you can cure the effects of high cost of living with inflation. But the high cost of living is due to inflation... so you are trying to convince me that we can cure inflation with more inflation. In other words you're like a firefighter who puts out gasoline fires with more gasoline. Nice try.

Apparently you grok neither economics nor logic, so you have to rely on insiders to tell you the truth every now and then. I quoted Trump, you skipped that, but don't forget to see the video I linked above.

> Luckily working people's savings are essentially nothing and you have a wage.

Lucky them, due to inflation constantly eroding their incomes, they can't save. I repeat, wage growth trails inflation, see housing and everything else.

> Which means it won't affect poor working people.

Untrue, as I've explained twice already.

> But yes it will destroy savings, which is why it hurts rich people and doesn't hurt poor people: the rich have savings you and I don't have. The rich have savings the state does not have.

Untrue, rich people don't have savings, they have properties and investments, inflation is how they acquire more of them, the poor are forced to sell cheap to survive, the rich swallow it all.

> Explicitly raising inflation to 10% or so helps poor people by destroying their debt,

More falsehoods from you - poor people, poor on collateral, borrow small amounts all the time, think payday loans at rates rising with inflation and several times higher than the rates for the rich - inflation does help the rich who borrow large sums at long intervals but it doesn't help the poor at all, for them, it's more inflation -> more wage erosion -> more (and more expensive) debt. You can't outrun your shadow, do you understand?

> and it hurts every kind of savings in the economy

It doesn't hurt the assets of the rich because they appreciate faster than inflation, especially if you include their siphoning of more assets due to the financially depressed poor.

> which is why rich people don't want it. It equalizes everyone.

The falsehoods are getting out of hand. The rich have vastly more debt than the poor, they borrow against their appreciating assets at vastly better interest rates and longer terms, so the more inflation - the less they repay, they love inflation more than anything, it makes them richer. If you're incapable of understanding my words, hear an authority with experience - by Trump's words: "Inflation made me very rich"

> Still have my original (1970) economics textbook.

Shoddy econ books are a dime a dozen. Give me the author and title, I love to make fun of sloppy econ books, there are so many of them, so much fun.

> Besides I don't understand why you're even making this argument... You can't stop it

Finally a sensible argument, kinda, as much as inevitability can be an argument. However, I'm not trying to stop inflation, I'm analyzing its systemic origins with an eye on systemic fixes. If it can't be stopped this time around, we should not allow it to happen again. Besides, I want to explore all options.

> If you work.

Work or no work doesn't matter, inflation steals everyone's savings, wages grow slower than inflation - so they get stolen too, it causes a run on assets, feeds on itself and feeds corruption-driven bubbles, the funds extracted via inflation lead to monopolization and oligarchy-zation, inflation can be used to install Hitlers and manipulate elections, the list goes on.

> You're not renting. You're not on a pension. You're not...

Right, if you're not living, inflation doesn't matter, in all other cases it does. I don't know what you are talking about here or rather, I know that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's crystal clear that you have no idea what the role of banks in the economy is and what it's supposed to be. Without that understanding you're going to keep presenting pompously mysterious arguments which are nonsensical even by the low-bar measure of mainstream economics. I cannot type a whole econ 101 course here, you're supposed to figure out on your own why we have banks, how they work and what they're supposed to achieve.

> Sure, I could say that my incentive is the interest rate, but my alternative is zero risk.

The risk of missed purchases isn't zero and the risk of missing investment profits isn't zero either. From motivational point of view, inflation and deflation aren't different, they're the same thing in a mirror image.

Deflation is rare as hen's teeth, harmless and extremely easy to fix. Inflation, on the other hand, is the most corrupt economic phenomenon by far, it's hard to fix and it has ruined numerous economies, caused wars, destruction and famines.

> Debt has something of a bad reputation and obviously it can be overused and abused, but it’s also something that helps the efficiency of economies.

This is a strawman, nobody said debt as such was bad. However, since you started, let me correct you - as it is, debt not only "can be overused and abused" - it is routinely abused and overused and inflation is a huge part of it.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the role of datacenters in this entire comment section. I should know better, I guess.

> but a open source model able to hack half the planet computers would be a 'concern' somehow

Well, a closed source model able to hack half the planet will be a far bigger concern if there aren't enough cheap open source models to harden the existing systems and write software for defense in depth.

> some dude ask "hey plz hack the military"

Military gear, capable of moderate levels of destruction and above, should be air-gaped and also hardened using good open source AI - as a precaution. If that's not the case, state sponsored human adversaries would be able to cause maximum damage even without AI.

Why do you think AI is mandatory here? And why do you think adversarial state actors will be deterred by your banning of your own open AI? They can even promise not to use it, may sign treaties about not using it but enforcing that would still be impossible.

As your parent said, control the tangible agents of destruction, controlling knowledge is the wet dream of many but it's a lost cause.

> we are living in a cartoon distopian apocalyps as drawn by the worst petulant office dweeb who is doing WAY to much acid on the weekends

I don't think their weekdays are any different.

"Free ride" is what big biz and especially big AI are getting, the government reduces their taxes, pays for the bailouts and gets saddled with the debt which is then passed to... those who elect it.

> So far this has not succeeded in preventing various attacks by state and non-state actors, like the Binance hack or the supermarket supply chain attacks in Europe.

I'm not talking about hacking, it's not an existential threat, it's a consequence of sloppy software and business practices, hacking attack actually help by forcing better software and bankrupting the incompetent businesses - there are currently too many of them due to political reasons, if we're lucky we'll see political improvements as well.

> like the Binance hack

Binance and crypto in general is a larger threat than the sum of all AI, it's legalized corruption, the question is why we are worried about AI but not about crypto.

Your other points refer mostly to state actors but as I said before, those risks are independent of AI and they have existed long before models were a thing. I suspect you, as many others, lacked information about the WMD situation in the world and became aware of it only in the context of AI, but if you remove AI you'll see that very little changes.

About biological weapons in particular, they're easy, they already exist and have been studied for years, AI can contribute very little to the downside here but it can help us tremendously with detecting and protecting from them.

The real problem with bioweapons is sloppy regulations and totally dysfunctional international treaties. The problem isn't AI, it's the lack of rational policies, I wish politicians were as serious about WMD risks as you are about AI, but that's not the case today. AI fearmongering is just a political tool used for the benefit of certain special interests.

Good points which make the case for open AI to always be on par with the best closed models, anything else would be an existential hazard indeed.

> Attack is often far easier than defense

Outdated views. In this case the attack is much harder, because the offender has to:

1. Develop offensive AI capabilities in secret.

2. Procure hazardous materials (nuclear, biological, etc) illegally and in secret

3. Find funds for CPU. GPU, energy, etc for a rather large and hard to hide undertaking.

4. Deal with a whole lot of other players, both government and private, who are armed with AI and have a keen interest in anything looking out of normal or secret.

5. Lastly, the offender will have to overcome the AI-assisted defenses against his actions - you think defense is harder but you fail to notice that the resources used for defense dwarf those available to offenders.

With that said, some very large private makers of closed AI will still be capable of developing doom capabilities, this can be fixed by mandating open source AI and better antitrust regulations.

A few governments will be capable of developing highly destructive weapons too - as they're now, and have been for quite some time. This problem is independent of AI and requires smart policies like improving international relations, better treaties concerning WMDs, etc.

> Does the publisher of open model weights have any exposure to compliance requirements if it’s someone else using the software, and they aren’t distributing or operating there?

Nope, no international treaties exist in that area, regardless of what EU's wannabe dictators want you to think.

> Her tweet is some Trump supporter style thinking. It's silly.

It's not silly, it's business as usual. Notice how quickly the "top of the Democratic agenda" switched away from the bait of legitimate issues... "on day 1", no less. Of course, bailing out the AI bros is what this is really about.

> that we should ban something amorphous that hasn't been developed/invented yet.

Amorphous legislation is the covert way to unchecked power, all practitioners have mastered it to perfection after the Patriot Act.

> This so-called "science without philosophy" is how the world got to this situation.

It's my firm belief that the world got to this situation in large part because of modern philosophy, it surely aided the movement to where we are now.

"Science without philosophy" is simply a parking spot for people dissatisfied with the current state of philosophy. Maybe philosophers should learn to ask the right questions and provide good answers?

> But what is knowledge without the wisdom to use it for the benefit of all?

And where do we find that wisdom? There's none in philosophy and only scattered bits in other sciences.

> translation american voters are naive.

A false dichotomy, prove it to yourself by asking the question "Would they be less naive if they'd voted the other way around?"

You became a victim of a very misleading post title. This isn't an OpenSSH problem at all, it's a musl problem.

I'm pretty sure the misleading wording is deliberate, OpenSSH is an excellent but non-commercial project which a bunch of entities would love to gain control of, in order to bug it with their spyware - thus the constant nagging on the bot-infested web.

The OP should be flagged.

> what will it take to move away from c? older devs retiring.

I'll take forking and porting, thank goodness for LLMs.

Business as usual.

What a great initiative! Many thanks for your efforts in this direction, material science is a hard and important discipline and quite in need of AI assistance, I know little about it but you're giving me a reason to finally look deeper into the subject.

> I don't see why this is downvoted. It is a reasonable question.

The sentinels downvote anything that may reveal the truth about the datacenter scheme, no matter how true - no counterpoints, no discussion of any kind, just naked downvoting.

One of my comments was heavily downvoted for pointing out the obvious truth that utility companies are asked to raise rates for building new power plants that are used only for the sole benefit of datacenter owners who demand that everybody should pay for those new plants.

> TBH I am not quite ready to spend a ton of time on docs yet as some of these things are changing on the fly.

I'd assume, what you do is based on some research, with articles and other projects like yours - these references are what's missing from your project, you don't have to write them yourself.

The most important missing explanation, that only you can provide, is this: Why a new language? There are projects that attach proof obligations to standard Rust in order to reuse its vast ecosystem and existing LLM skills. That would be a far easier and more productive approach to take.

> utility companies raise rates in response to demand,

That's less than a half truth.

Here's the full version:

Utility companies raise rates in order to build new power plants for the sole use and benefit of a single big biz customer who demands that all pay for the new plants his big biz needs.

> Dems still need to figure out how to get things fixed with a hostile judicial and executive branch

It'll take some time, I hear, like decades to fix "the vast damage this admin has done". It's not simple... "Do you know what a supply chain is?"

As, um, opposed to Scott Bessent who said this about AI: "So the thing that they are building is going to cause disinflation. It is causing a short-term competition for capital, but … we're going to see real productivity growth [in the long-term]."

No rush here, we always plan 20 years ahead in the future and replace the plans every 4 years or so... with even better plans. The long term is all yours, as Keynes aptly put it. What more could you want?

> gas, becoming more expensive, made other things cheaper by suppressing demand on them.

Nope, it may suppress demand for "other things" but doesn't make them cheaper. The making of "other things" uses gas too, as do their makers, so they have to increase their prices as well in order to compensate for the increased input costs.

The suppression of demand, if it materializes at all, has a natural floor, as does the reduction of margin - it's natural floor is 0 - past that, reduction of price is impossible. In fact, reduced output usually leads to higher costs per unit produced due to reduced economies of scale, as a result, lower demand often results in higher prices even if gas prices stay the same.

> You can also argue it's not good for many other people, like: - the average consumer (that expects a quality long-lasting product)

I would rather let people decide for themselves.

> independent repair shops that either won't get those jobs, [ok] cannot actually perform the work due to tech/service monopolies

Part availability and service monopolization are easily fixable by regulation and it's an old practice.

> [ repair shops ] simply lose revenue because the work is shorter

Welcome to the AI economy, where a lot of people lose a lot of work because it became easier and shorter to do.

> They severely reduced the number of components by integrating parts into larger pieces.

Just swap the larger pieces, computers and phones are like that, when they're at all fixable.

> Something being self serving doesn't make it false, and you don't have to rabidly deny basic economic theory just because you hate the guy.

But you're denying both basic economic theory and basic political theory. If RAM is to be allocated, it has to be done in a safe manner too. Something like publicly funded and controlled datacenters, protected against data leaks and spying by private interests who want to use people's research to then steal their credit, ideas and businesses.

Let's now move from basic politics to economics - upwards of a Trillion dollars of debt has been sank into AI, most of it for free, subsidized AI services provided both domestically and internationally - how's that for "basic economics"?

But there's more, for $1 trillion, you could build 100 chip factories for RAM or other chips - 100 of them - 10 times more than we now have. Not building any or not building enough, means you're severely overpaying for RAM and compute - how's that for "basic economics"?

If Sam wants to plan the economy for efficiency, let's do it the way it has to be done, simplistic self-serving BS doesn't cut it.

> As long as they don't use borrowed money to purchase all the supplies

Don't they? Being in debt over the value of their RAM purchases means they are using only borrowed money for it - money is fungible, if not buying any RAM for X dollars would reduce their debt by X dollars, everything else being the same - their RAM is bought entirely on debt - and that's precisely the case for both OpenAI and Anthropic.

Both of them a running a textbook market scalping operation as the OP is suggesting.

> And will continue to force our leaders into that shape as long as we continue this system.

What system? Seriously, there are infinite number of systems, it's not a binary choice despite what the ms media and some politicians are claiming.

> But if you want to grow tomatoes and make your living that way,

You forget that we live in the age of AI abundance, "make your living" and "support you financially" aren't arguments with any weight here. Let's get clear about this, because the AI bros did a bait and switch and replaced the promised "AI abundance for you" with "sacrifice yourself for AI".

It's a really important point - math and logic skills are essential for not taking the bait. In other words, besides a science tool and an art, math is a tree where geniuses and not-so-geniuses can sharpen their claws, because being dull is an existential hazard, especially when a bunch of sneaky AI bros are hell-bent on using AI against you.

> if you want your hobby to support you financially, it has to offer enough value for others

Nah, AI is supposed to offer more than enough value for others, it's easy to do, those who can't make it happen should get out of the way, it's that simple. The BS has to stop, it's either deliver AI abundance or get rid of any and all AI altogether. There's no middle ground here, or rather, the middle ground is a swamp of existential hazards.

> Then the disturbed human tells the refusal-free model to do anything necessary to launch nuclear weapons.

If a model on rented hardware could manage to launch some country's nuclear weapons, the same could be done by model-armed or model-free humans, spies, etc from other countries - using their specialized tooling they could always do better than any model.

In short, AI doesn't add any new threats to the mix, the defenses against AI are the same as against adversarial humans, and the whole brouhaha is nonsense. Sure, make your defenses impenetrable, use AI for that and it'll stop any I, not only AI.