aogaili

I came to the exact conclusion anology myself. So there is something to it.

The creativity part I do acknowledge, I think the models are not fully there yet.

But regarding the compute, I disagree a bit. I think the bottlenecks were cognition and ideas, not compute. Given that models are able to outperform humans in output by thousand folds, the differentiation would be the quality of the tokens produced and the ability to scale across different domains.

If they have enough compute to supply the entire globe, I'm sure they can redirect some of it to whatever use case they (or their super AI) deem worthy and loop on it, and if they have the best software engineering systems/methodology to build and release it, then they can out compete any other supplier without those resources.

We are already seeing single developers attempting to rebuild entire corporations history worth of output. We are also seeing the labs dumping hundreds of solutions to math problems.

This is a nice thoughtful article.

If Anthropic has the best coding model, harness and the best software development methodologies and systems. And then, they scale all that up, with no constrains on their tokens. On top of that, they have access to all kind of ideas their models getting trained on when millions are chatting with it - then in theory they can build any software better than anyone out there. And same goes to science and math..

It might be true - I don't recall exactly how much was my contribution, it was a year ago. I do remember iterating a lot.

I just find it how interesting we ended up with very similar design despite the iterations I had.

What is strange is that last year I spent a lot of time creating the exact same 3D gallery experience with Claude. I picked up the style of the lights, the benches, the walls, the cards position. I also added music, lights on top of the images and the exact tour experience.

A year later, I see a very similar implementation!...I find that very odd.

But I do like the experience and site, there are few things I can pick from it myself for the project I've.

But it seems to me anything you use Claude for will be used aggressively to train the next model and some else in same prompting space can recreate it.

Not take the anything from the author's work, mine was in a slightly different context.

The article was mainly about young men. I'm no a sociologist, and I don't have data myself, but I find it hard to believe that they this category won't struggle.

Job market being automated, poor economy, expensive houses, and a culture that encourages casual dating, onlyFans, porn etc, I just don't know how young men can't be more depressed than the generations before it.

So I'm not sure why you can't buy it when so many factors would more likely point to the result in the two data points shared and the sentiment of the young men expressed.

Haha! the parasite destroyed one host, few millions to go

So what do you want every model company to pay you for your comment because they will scrap it?

What's this argument?

It's thin because we don't have enough data to say otherwise and everyone else is doing worse? Go get more data then before negating the signals and the two confirming data points we have. I "don't buy" is not a reason. It could be everyone is doing worse and men are doing worse than most (or impacted the most), those are not mutually exclusive.

In number 4 of the author's definition of parasite, the parasite kills the host not benefit it.

I guess that analogy would be people stop sharing their thoughts publicly, which is as likely as people stop sharing on social media, very unlikely for many reasons.

You work is not relevant on its own. It's the aggregate of billions that shaped those models.

Society/governments need to figure out another way to take back from those companies and give to the public.

But who said it's harmful overall? That's a statement you are making not the people deriving value from it. The fact is many are benefiting otherwise they wouldn't pay that subscription.

So you want them to pay the host websites for scrapping their publicly shared content? Or give attribution to how this is forming its opinion?

It's narrow take I think, let us say someone read my comment or blog, among others, and used that shape their understanding, and then by doing that, they offered better consultation, then should that person pay back every author, book and blog they read?

I don't understand what's the argument here, and also the same methods is used to give us open source models..

So they are either parasites or Robin Hood?

But that's not the definition of parasite. People are using it because they are gaining value.