therealpygon

Yes…and no. If you put 5 stupid people together, chances are you can get a smarter answer than individuals. If you put 5 smart people together, they will argue about the wording of the question.

I kid, but also not. If the smart model already has a smart plan, odds aren’t great more smart models are going to create an even smarter plan. Not entirely true because that is the goal of parallelizing discovery attempts, but the point is there is more room to gain benefit from adding additional inference-time compute with a smaller model than one that already had a ton of compute to begin with.

Both sides have a point. If I ask you for feedback on the food sample I just gave you, would you automatically assume that I was recording audio and video, will be using your response in training videos, and will be used for AI training? Or might one reasonably assume the “feedback” is what is being given and not a blanket right to anything about them and their answer and using their likeness for training videos because they said “Eh.”

It seems like your counter-point is “they already use everyone’s data, why didn’t you just assume they would”, which is a bit weird from a victim-blaming perspective but valid nonetheless.

I think you mean free, expensive, and slightly even more expensive.

I’d be surprised if an investor lawsuit doesn’t come out of this in order to get depositions from Musk under oath. I would certainly sign on, being an investor in SpaceX whose investment was put at risk by these antics, regardless of who ordered or didn’t. If it was because of government order, I have no problem because the company had no choice, if it is because he decided to invoke his personal views this way, I got a big problem as that puts at risk every lucrative government contract.

Here is an example: my wife purchased a drink product and the product she received tastes strongly of chemicals to her. She has no way to know if that is because the company made a mistake. Do you think it is her responsibility to throw away money when she cannot consume a product that tastes of chemicals? “Too bad you don’t like the taste, you shouldn’t have tried us, pick a different brand next time!” Don’t think I’d be interested in being a customer of a company that agrees with you.

You forgot to include the sales tax and any other vehicle taxes (since you included VAT, it should be a fair comparison that includes tax).

That makes the original statement even less accurate.

“Perfectly safe” eh… freeze distillation doesn’t remove methanol so it is far from perfectly safe, but closer to “probably be fine” than poorly handled alembic would be. I think people should have the right to make their own alcohol if they want, but I’m probably not rushing to drink other people’s distilled trashcan mash.

Don’t worry, someone said they will be Toyota EVs…so the second worst in my experience. Improvement!

I have to agree, but I think some people find the joy in finding their solutions in code rather than from code…meaning that for some it is the puzzle solving that is their interest. That can be rather hard to find an analog for, especially if coding is the skill they are good at.

The lack of AI mental model between conversations or even within the conversation is a definite frustration. “No, I didn’t just decide to entirely change everything I’ve planned based on one ambiguous word…”

Your use of a separate session for q&a is actually something I find interesting in the new Granite Switch architecture’s KV Cache Normalization, where the kv cache is essentially frozen while the model performs certain other tasks in order to prevent the mental ‘conversation’ from getting polluted. However, I’m also assuming what you mean by “helps grounding” is that it helps keep the agent grounded in the context by not introducing a bunch of external information, which is certainly beneficial.

You just search around, or heck, just ask Google for inference providers that are ZDR and whatever else you want. Just make sure to read their terms/privacy and review the security center. You will have to request access if you are wanting to get into the deeper details.

Outside of major players like Amazon/Google which have compatible offerings available, I believe together.ai, fireworks.ai, and deepinfra.com are, as best as I can tell, US-based (if that matters in your situation) SOC2/HIPPA/ZDR. Each of them offer serverless model hosting with caching, which is going to be the cheapest overall. Most of them also offer private AI deployment which is more expensive but your entirely own instance. Some of them more heavily quantize their models (deepinfra) so take that into your workload considerations. I included deepinfra because they tend to have some the new models sooner than others or have models the others don’t (like mimo). IMO, together > fireworks > deepinfra.

However, you’ll have to keep in mind that for true ZDR you give up caching which increases your inference costs, so it depends on how “Zero” you need the zero to be and on what timeframe. If you just don’t want your data being trained on, normal use is fine imo. If you are working on something actually sensitive (like, because of NDA agreements and such), then they might not be the right choice and you may be looking at more expensive offerings or building a machine.

One note: you have to pay attention to the source of the inference. Many (similar to open router) offer models that are pass-throughs to a providers API, but they are pretty clearly marked. Just make sure the model is marked as serverless when evaluating new ones. This is where a proxy comes in handy so you can prevent your LLM from accessing a different models from the specific ones you’ve vetted.

So you are claiming that if someone says “it’s raining” while there is precipitation, and then it stops, they can say it is “no longer raining” but aren’t allowed to believe it was raining before?

Is there a chance any of that is linked to the million scammers that sign up for more and more free accounts, sending spam, getting banned, and then repeating it?

It used to be most of our spam came from Google accounts, and some still does, but now that is far and away outpaced by spam coming from Microsoft who does not take those same steps to deanonymize users. Also, “bot traffic” (AI traffic) is definitely a very real problem sites deal with. Also, you know who else uses Gemini from VPNs?

All the things you complain about seem to have real, direct consequences when not done.

I’m with you, I don’t want to be tracked and don’t want log in to every website. Just saying the reasons are pretty compelling when the reality we live in these days is a connected world with advanced technology where your average teenage could potentially hack a power plant and your average scammer can now use far more advanced AI tools to trick people.

This will only get worse, which is the real reason for the quiet US/EU push to unmask users, require IDs, etc. and not because some kids go online to naughty websites with boobs on them.

You think people are supposed to be forced to accept things they don’t like or are unhappy with as customers? Let me make sure I understand: if you go buy a sandwich, and it tastes so bad you can’t even eat it, your answer is, “aww shucks, they got me again, I should lose money!”

…and are not only “okay” with that, but enjoy it so much as to go online to ridicule others who don’t do the same? Weird.

Well, they do need to try to compete with SubQ’s longer context and image processing that has been coming out ahead in benchmarks, plus the thousand self-hosted options that now exist.

… ”again.”

News outlets always seem to forget “again” in the title.

What a fantastical paradigm you’ve constructed from an otherwise well reasoned set of slides talking about how humans can work with AI to advance the future, yet what you got from it is”frenetic”, “torture”, “scarcity, “toil” and “rationalization “. It seems to speak more to the lens with which you view AI, and others opinions, more than anything the author actually said.

> illegal No, it’s not. Liability isn’t legality. There is nothing illegal in violating a ToS, nor is it a crime. Violating a ToS makes you liable under some other terms of that same agreement. That is very different from being “illegal”.

Data centers tend to be higher security facilities for a reason. Publicizing any of their technical specs isn’t really beneficial, especially when any numbers that are provided will be dismissed unless even more information is provided to back them up.

Effectively no reward at any risk level, regardless of whether one agrees if there is actually any risk.

Ah yes. Kids are getting cancer “because they are fat and lazy”. How quaint.

Clearly you just made the completely unique mistake of not understanding it’s more like the “ownership” of digital movies, games and music where there is clearly no ownership. That is completely obvious to anyone who would see the word “own”…at least according to most companies court filings.

(I joke, but not really…)

Guess that is a matter of perspective eh? If they say a Big Mac meal now costs $20 normal price but the price is being dynamically decreased based on order volume to attract customers at off-times for a lower price, does this Kohl’s “every weekend is a sale” model suddenly make everything feel better?

Remember when Claude hacked multiple companies? Pepperidge Farm remembers, even if Anthropic thinks we don’t.

I agree with you. And if they flipped a coin, and the coin happened to land on heads which they decided was a prediction of no cancer, would you recommend they tell others flip their coin if they are tired of their doctor because it was helpful when their test came back negative? “It didn’t hurt anything”, right? What happens when that specialized test is $100k because it is rare, and your doctor is pushing back, “but the quarter told me i have this cancer and you said your other tests couldn’t rule it out”. Is there no harm then? Would you still think they should go around advertising their cancer detecting quarter without anyone pointing out it’s freaking quarter?

Btw, no one suggested people shouldn’t consider various forms of information. All I pointed out is that if an LLM happened to guess right, it doesn’t mean that is some sort of datapoint that others should believe validates an AI’s predictive abilities any more than a telephone psychic or webmd should be a trusted source because they are occasionally right.

It is exactly the tactic that makes snake-oil…I mean the vitamin industry…so profitable from people going around and telling others crap like “rubbing the oil from this tree on my foot made me sleep better”, and “I took this garnish as a supplement and it cured my blah blah”. Can people need vitamins? Sure. Does the average person need anywhere near the amount they take? Rarely. People sell each other a dream of feeing better; this would be cutting out the middle man and suggesting an AI take over.

It’s funny how pointing out the risk means people act like I’m suggesting it should be banned. We can see how many MLM Karens came out of the woodwork to defend AI in this, as though I somehow said people shouldn’t be allowed to consider feedback from an LLM by simply pointing out exactly how wrong — best case — it could have easily been from a system known to make errors. In fact, the only reliable part about AI right now is that it will make mistakes. Literally almost all investment in AI is about having it make less mistakes,. Every single metric we use to measure AI is about how many mistakes it makes. Every time we test how smart it is, we measure how much it got wrong and how many times it failed.

I understand it. Sick people will turn to just about anything as a cure or to make them feel better, or simply to find some hope. Sometimes they get better, whether that thing helped or not, and then loudly tell everyone that whatever thing did it regardless of realities. I’m not discounting anyone’s stories, I’m pointing out how they were lucky it didn’t go exactly the opposite, which is what the next person could experience by trusting and not considering the feedback from an LLM cautiously.

Also, can literally anyone point out where the comment I replied to said a word about “doing research”? Anyone? People immediately Karen in on how “it’s just part of research” — where was that said? Or did people just read what they wanted to? Too funny.

PS, I have MS… before any more idiots want to tell me that I don’t know anything about the problems with the US healthcare system.

3- Also, this is rebroadcasting, technically a textbook definition of piracy even when that content might normally be obtained for free, especially if the content began encrypted.

(Because some laws are stupid. Please support right to repair and DMCA reform.)

Playing the critic that alternate “50%” outcomes were:

- You didn’t have a thyroid issue and you spent thousands more on tests the doctor was right that you didn’t need.

- Your cat didn’t have that issue and you spent hundreds on unnecessary tests.

Are you essentially saying that it is better for an LLM to sell you an idea that sometimes might be right, selling a dream to anyone with and without the money for it?

So… a telephone psychic?

The thing about WebMD telling everyone they have cancer is that sometimes it will be right.

(Just for clarity, I’m really glad it was helpful for you.)

“Everything else”. Societies get to decide exactly how much is, can, or will be automated, what decisions must be left to humans and what role we will play.

The business. No matter how it was generated they used the imagery and are responsible for any infringements or liabilities.

Does one of them not supposedly support democracy?

There is no inherent self limitation from cigarettes beyond the time it takes to smoke a cigarette. I’m not sure who you knew that smoked but I can say for certain that long-time heavy users don’t need an hour break. Quite the opposite. Abusers will hack up a lung after minutes without a cigarette puff and will wake up in the middle of the night to smoke, repeatedly.

This thread (outside your statements) is such a bizarre conversation to me that somehow people have deluded themselves into the argument a cigarette is a better option than putting in work to quit. Heroin could probably help someone stop smoking pot…that doesn’t mean it is a better choice just because “it’s harder to afford when you’re a junkie and therefore takes longer to get a hit than finding a J”.

I get the capability to abuse is easier than a cigarette, no disagreement. It’s probably similar to when smoking was allowed everywhere including on planes and in restaurants. I don’t see how the solution to ease of use, ease of access, and manufacturers adding far too much nicotine is “start smoking a different product with proven worse health consequences, including cancer, rather than vaping too much and possibly having some negative health effects”. These days nearly all major vape companies are owned by tobacco companies. They have a lot of experience in pushing the addictiveness boundaries for significant profit from the past 100+ years, and they are doing it again with vapes.

I say all this as someone who smoked for 15+ years, up to a pack and a half to two packs a day, vaped increasingly more nicotine over 5 years, and quit vaping over the course of a year by mixing 0mg nicotine liquid -- almost every vape liquid manufacturer offers it -- in fractionally increasing ratios each week until I was only vaping zero nicotine. I continued vaping 0mg for years after because I actually enjoy the act of smoking, but I finally just decided not to anymore.

Choosing not to quit and choosing not take any responsibility or steps toward battling your addictions are vastly different from not being capable. Everyone has the capacity to battle their addictions when they choose to, and small counter-examples or lack of success do not negate that premise.

Maybe he will even give everyone a bonus, but only if they agree with his philosophy during the next employee survey. It’s a new fad I heard about.