EternalFury

Everyone is starting to express themselves as LLMs. I fell prey to having LLMs “copyedit” some of my words when I wanted to make sure I got my point across, but I am trying to stop that. Online in particular, I see a style which I call “probabilistic English”, infused with odd hip expressions.

I thought it was only a problem for English communication, for which we have little care, but the same applies to code now. More and more code appears to be “probabilistic code”, homogenized to what is most common in the data LLMs were trained on.

Public education is important. Without it, it’s harder to stay above average. But there are those who say “it is not my duty to fund the education of anyone else.” Hence, here we are.

Yes, it’s contradictory to some degree. On purpose. That’s part of living it.

My “advice” is also US-centric, where I have observed time and again what truly leads to one getting their fair share.

Freelancing is a way to achieve this.

My advice is: Don’t let someone else control your life. Switch occupation every 2 years, even if you find a great environment. Don’t chase, for what you need must come to you. Understand no one can give you the answers you seek; you have to live it.

If somehow recovering the capex expenditure is not counted, if somehow the cost of developing future models is not counted, then yes, inference costs of current leading models allow a profit.

But those things are tied together.

Even xAI, that now has a reasonably competitive model, is struggling to achieve PMF. Meta is in shambles because their models have underperformed for years now.

There are people who think knowledge discovery is just a matter of parroting past behavior and trying things at random until something sticks. I don’t.

Force is supreme until you use it, then everyone knows it has limits.

So…calculators are intelligent? How about accountants that failed arithmetic 101 in high-school, are they intelligent? Generally intelligent?

We are jagged, but we can smooth that jaggedness if we choose to do so. LLMs stay jagged.

The real question is: Can it be generated using programs? If it can be, then LLMs will eventually monkey type these programs.

Yes. I doubt it can do that.

I am thinking there’s a large category of problems that can be solved by resampling existing proofs. It’s the kind of brute force expedition machine can attempt relentlessly where humans would go mad trying. It probably doesn’t really advance the field, but it can turn conjectures into theorems.

It does seem good, but it’s slow.

I was going to say something, then I realized my cynicism is already at maximum.

Is it just me or does it feel like billionaires of that ilk can never go broke no matter how bad their decisions are? The complete shift to the metaverse, the complete shift to LLMs and fat AI glasses, the bullheaded “let’s suck all talents out of the atmosphere” phase and now let’s freeze all hiring. In a handful of years.

And yet, billionaires will remain billionaires. As if there are no consequences for these guys.

Meanwhile I feel another bubble burst coming that will hang everyone else high and dry.