mptest

>how this was news I'll explain. It's a 'news' article from an arm of a multinational conglomerate trying to massage the economic harm the isolationist fascists currently in charge of the us govt are doing for (hopefully) obvious material reasons. see also: literally any of wapo's recent journalistic history, the nyt on gaza, social media like twitter's political shift, the tech ceo's in the front row of trump's inauguration, or if you prefer books, manufacturing consent, technofuedalism (yanis), surveillance capitalism, etc, etc, etc. capitalists stick together.

see also: his attacks on the "horrible" CHIPS act [0]. If anyone think he's doing anything good for anyone but billionaires, contact me. I've got some trump coin to sell you.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-wants-kill-527-bill...

Feels like Chip Wars more aptly lays out the material reality of why and how we historically ended up here if you prefer that to what shape the propaganda took. "We want even bigger profit margins. We sought the globally cheapest labor pool we could. Whoopsie, they got better at it than us and started competing. Let's catch up with government subsidy to compete or get SotA at a different piece of the market. Ok we caught up with state money, time to offshore a different piece of the puzzle to an even cheaper labor pool for even bigger profits." repeated until: "Whoopsie, an island off the coast of our 'rival' makes 90+% of one of the most vital products in the world."

Don't take it too hard. I've seen someone accused of using an LLM to write something because they correctly used an oxford comma. It's definitely the trap.

I've seen the most people take the most issue with the insane "authors life + Xx years" that copyright lasts for, not really components of fair use.

I'm empathetic to this argument, but it feels like it's doing a disservice to the open source ethos in general.

Pragmatic as china is, they may actually see the long term value of being open research leaders to short term profit. They are not as bound to immediate and constant growth as we are, their horizons do not change so dramatically every 4 years to say the least.

Don't many respected developers care deeply about their research being open source? I'm no expert but I've read many an article (maybe I'll buy your bridge, too) that suggests willingness to open source research holds at least some weight in some researchers choosing their company. It strikes me as at least possible some of that is earnest, sure even deepseek isn't open source open source, no training set etc. but it feels like they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

All that said I'm still a student, a master of none, so cannot speak first hand to any of this. Just offering another point of view

You can use the outputs of a closed source model (or deepseek -> llama. see llama 70b deepseek distilled) to create a synthetic training data set which lets you fine tune (distill) most of the benefits of the "smarter" model in to a "dumber" model. This is why openAi does not show the actual full chain of thought but a summarized version. To stop exfiltration of their IP which has proven immensely difficult.*

*disclaimer; i am an expert of nothing

Everyone is sympathetic to that line of thinking. Most, here at least, have the brain cells to rub together to recognize that the costs of civil rights' absence are greater than the costs incurred by those rights.

You're the one using dramatic imaginations and hyperbolic language to justify unconstitutional searches. If "growing up" means "willfully surrender all your rights to a dubious police force"... consider me a child if that makes you feel better about your inane justifications for violating the privacy of law abiding citizens. Maybe you should learn a little history about the fbi. There's a reason the constraints the above comment laments the fbi breaking exist in the first place.

>come in, go home, come back.

https://youtu.be/2n34NrkDlZk

this felt germane

I promise bad things still happen in your city. Do you think drugs stop getting sold when a dealer is picked up? Seems fairly naïve...

Is that the bar necessary to believe systemic change is possible? I'd argue it should be "any slightly more peaceful way than the existing order". Perfect the enemy of good and all that. Or am I missing something?

I agree about the general silliness of most of the "generative" features - I was only contesting that to me, there's a clear difference in the rate of institutional belief/backing and adoption

Except AI is kinda already in everything from iphones to windows to google? Don't think that point holds well

Has it been shown for o1 conclusively? I'd love to read the paper. I recall that Apple paper about non reasoning due to fuzzed question data causing performance degradation that caught a lot of traction but IIRC o1 had pretty resilient performance compared to previous models. which to be clear I agree with your sentiment towards. I just have yet to see definitive data that shows o1 is not fundamentally more resilient to the types of test we use to discern "reasoning" from "pattern matching".

I watched a professor lecture on the likely candidates for what the open source llm community think is going on in o1[0] and I'm not convinced it's still simple pattern matching. [0] https://youtu.be/6PEJ96k1kiw

Also, lockdown mode and pair locking your device. Pair locking iirc is how you protect against cellubrite type attacks

>please don't perpetuate generic ideological tangents

Where did I do that? I tried to discredit an example of that which you are lamenting. Seems odd to reply this to my comment, though I understand flagging it.

What was the correct behavior when the notion I replied to is posed? Report it? Ignore it? Is there any reply to that comment you would not have flagged? Earnest questions.

As anyone can hopefully see from my follow up comments in this thread, I have no desire to be nasty nor any intention to degrade the quality of discussion here.

What evidence do you have to disagree?

Reagen's and thatcher's whole agenda can be summed up by: "the biggest lie is 'i'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Have you not paid much attention to politics since Reagan and Thatcher? Their whole objective was to hollow out the government piece by piece, then point to its declining performance as justification for getting rid completely, or to gut further. Repeat. This has been the modus operandi for conservative parties since at LEAST thatcher and Reagan.

>we have record spending as a percentage of gdp and are approaching a sovereign debt crisis

Yeah, it's those pesky regulatory agencies riding up that tally I'm sure, not the almost 1 trillion we spend a year perpetuating apartheid states or our military bases all over the world while 3 americans hoard more wealth than 50% of all americans combined. Silly, patently false defense for an already silly position.

Couldn't be the trillions we spent on the war on "terror". Or the trillions we spend on futile measures like the war on drugs. It's def the ftc and the epa. Those lot. That's who's causing our problems. Yep. That makes sense.

Are you serious? Either you're not a student of history or we have drastically different readings of the past 40 years of american government.

>We never really had an austerity movement

Patently false, dishonest rewriting of history. Did you not pay attention to Reagan actually did?

Reagan's whole thing was the whole govt helping is a lie.

Reagan cut food stamps and almost all other spending while drastically increasing the military budget, cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulated in the name of austerity, got the war on drugs going to villainize his political opponents.

You simply can not be serious. Maybe read Reagan's wiki page before writing such demonstrably revisionist history.

Yeah, I generally agree with that. Why I said it only moved them from stochastic parrot campers to "possible" believers - to clarify, the few I've had test it have all pretty much said "this feels like it could lead to real reasoning/productivity/advances/intelligence".

Guess we're using different measures of "success" - in my book any govt program that nets more revenue than than it costs taxpayers or provides more value than it costs (harder to verify) (irs and usps respectively, for instance) is a "successful" program - Thus the irs is a "successful" govt program that is not getting its budget cut because it's successful, and socialist systems would still have an irs... That's kinda where I was coming from

Thanks for the reading recommendations. Sunkara's manifesto for me is the best put case with the most brevity.

I haven't read those, I've mostly read stuff like Piketty and Sunkara, or smaller more focused stuff like Zuboff's surveillance capitalism or Rifkin's green new deal , caste, Harvey's history of neoliberalism, or Hannah Arendt's work that generally rebukes capitalism more than it does fundamentally bolster the ideas of socialism - You do make me reflect I haven't read much that's meant to be anything other than stuff from my side though

In my experience o1 is not comparable to any other llm experience. I have had multiple phd friends test it - it's what has turned them from stochastic parrot campers to possible believers

and to be clear - as a layman, (in almost every field) I've recognized that llm's weren't up to the challenge of disavowing that notion from my phd friends up until o1 and never even tried, even though I've 'believed' since gpt 2

>while basically grandfather in stuff like depleting the Great Salt Lake, coal emissions, etc.

Gee, almost as if decades of austerity politics, lobbying by financial interests, and regulatory capture has malformed a well intentioned regulatory apparatus? Seems like we need more regulation that's less interested in what "united citizens" have to say. (read lobbyists)

How are you arriving at that assessment of regulation of spaceX? i'd be interested in reading more.

Oh idk maybe picking up just about any recent history book? ie, the goals and effects of austerity politics?

No, not exactly. If you know someone used cash at one place can you track every cash transaction they've ever made? If you know one bitcoin transaction from a wallet you can track everything that key pair has done from genesis to present. So, if anything, it's worse.

>died out

Btc is currently like 60k... What does died out mean to you?

They're pseudonymous. Not anonymous. Big difference. Monero transactions are anonymous.

>Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy

That's the way they sell it, we agree about that.

>the effect that has is to minimize inequality.

So that's why we have worse than gilded age inequality?[0] Seems they haven't done too much of that despite their sales pitch. See trickle down economics.

>the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it.

Not what the math says. I agree, in general starvation and what not are technically down. But shouldn't we have aspirations a little greater than "less people are starving to death in a world we drop?" I just don't see what evidence you have other than a correlation

[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionai...

>Most of the negatives you’ve listed here are a result of other countries defence force inadequacies.

If there are inequalities of wealth, and a delineation of artificial constructs like race, religion or nationality, there will result an inequality of military force.

This material inequality is reflected in reality by the negatives I've described. A world where we accept "stronger military = good" naively exacerbates that inequality.

>we have the most democratic and stable societies that have ever existed in the history of our species, as well as the highest quality of life.

I'm glad you brought this up. One might argue the material wealth of our nations is a direct result of utilizing inequity by building a domineering military presence globally. Of the exploitation of colonialism and slavery.

Globalization in capitalism is the will of capital owners seeking more exploitable labor, not some desire to spread an ideology. That material/economic relationships are the oldest dated interactions between continents and societies seems obvious enough demonstration of that fact.

We have indeed made a marked change in quality of life, but on societal scales is the lifestyle 'gains' of the comparative 1% worth the toil of the 99? We have to pay heed to this measure when using any analysis on quality of life or the worth of decisions like military strength.

I'm not a sociologist, I just wanted to add that there is, to my knowledge, no evidence of an innate correlation between democracy, quality of life, and military strength. If you have literature that suggests otherwise I'd be happy to read it.

>Funding Israel’s conflicts is not a fundamental part of our way of life.

The specifics may not be, but the purpose of an extensive global military presence is fundamentally about creating or exploiting these inequalities wherever they arise for material aims. This is reflected by the fact that the action we take is directly proportional to the material value intervention would have to our bottom line.

SA killing Kashoggi or contributing to direct attacks? Cool, long as they got $/oil. Israel doing war crimes? Cool, long as they keep buying their arms from us and their ire focused on those we don't care for. Country getting worked over by our 'rival' ie taiwan or ukraine? Give them all the money and arms.

I'm not even trying to argue the merit of any of these decisions, I just don't agree any analysis is as simple as "stronger military = safer better happier fun time pax romana".

>enabling our modern way of life

That's kind of their point, though? They're suggesting our "way of life" is backwards in some ways, which I think is a fair assessment.

We find ourselves supporting financially things like what's happening in Israel or Gaza or happened in Iraq or Afghanistan or Sudan or Armenia or Haiti or insert the rest of the list of countries we've coup'ed here. While we fight over whether poor people deserve healthcare, or if school kids deserve not to starve. Over if public education is good or not. Or if women deserve medical autonomy...

None of that is particularly democratic. Globalization happened because rich people wanted cheaper labor in the 'global south' not because of military bases. I don't know that it's obvious military is what's "produced globalization" and "highly democratic" societies. That seems a fairly large keep of faith.