beloch

"At most companies, only someone with decades of experience under their belt would be trusted with a project this size. Patel thinks that’s a problem.

“If you don’t hire the early-in-career [workers], and you just let your workforce continue the way that they were, where do fresh ideas get injected? How do you challenge the status quo?” he said."

-------------------

This would be an interesting approach for a bleeding edge startup that's betting big on producing something novel or going bankrupt. If you're going to bet the company on one guy and some AI, that's bold. He'd better have some serious chops and not be merely a slick salesman.

However, Cisco is an infrastructure company. Status quo is what most people want from an infrastructure company. You don't want your Cisco stuff to suddenly start doing new, innovative things that require a complete redux of everything built on top of it. This, of course, assumes that having one guy do a refactor of your entire code-base produces something "innovative" rather than a cavalcade of snafu's.

It's probably not the best time to be holding CSCO.

Silly billionaire, fair use is for people, not megacorps!

But seriously, fair use is for students, teachers, comedians, and all the people who can't pay or couldn't possibly pay enough for permission from copyright holders. A corporation training a closed model for profit can, and should, pay. If American copyright law is too onerous for megacorps to contend with, maybe it should be reformed.

Scale seems to be the real issue. Given that there are relatively few actors with the scale to cause serious problems (and those actors have the resources to shrug off minor penalties), perhaps more targeted legislation is necessary. e.g. Different penalties for petty scraping and grand theft scraping. Of course, this would necessarily target the people who pay for election campaigns, so it will never happen.

3. Some applications are going to work just fine with smaller models on local hardware. If people still have machines with the memory to run those models laying around, that will cost OpenAI business. Also, once RAM suppliers catch up and Moore's law resumes operation, the capability of local hardware is going to steadily improve. Were it not for the AI build-out, typical configurations for new PC's would likely have moved on from 32GB by now.

4. Everything is training data. If that data isn't going to OpenAI, they're not training on it.

Also, it's important to remember OpenAI's failure might actually be the best thing for everyone else in the AI field. e.g. Some new innovation/approach could come out of left field and eat OpenAI's lunch. They've bet the farm (and a lot of other peoples' farms) on a brute force approach. Altman needs your RAM because, if he doesn't control the brute force, the brute force approach might not work only for him.

TNG should be played 24/7 on every screen in the white house for the next two years.

Picard viewed the power of leadership as, foremost, a responsibility. Every action was careful, deliberate, and well advised. Some later Trek shows (e.g. Voyager) turned captains into geniuses who knew more about everything than all of their underlings. Picard was not an expert in most things and needed his staff to advise him. Once he knew the options and consequences, he shouldered the responsibility of the outcomes, but as a leader of a crew, not a genius with compatible lackeys and minions around him. It was a realistic take on leadership that simply doesn't appear often in television or movies.

Stewart, of course, was not Picard. It's too easy to conflate actors with their roles. However, actors do often help shape their characters, and Stewart's ability to give a thoughtful, diplomatic, and prudent character such incredible power and presence is likely what made Picard possible. The showrunners didn't need to strap a phaser to his thigh and drop him into every away mission to make him compelling because of what Stewart was able to accomplish as an actor sitting behind a desk.

Helium-4 is what you get out of the ground with natural gas. Helium-3 is what you get from tritium. A combination of these two is what gives you really low cryogenic temperatures needed for quantum computing.

Canada produces a lot of He-4 from natural gas and a huge proportion of the worlds tritium in its heavy water reactors. Most countries that produce tritium and He-3 tend to hoard it, but Canada is selling it cheap. If the U.S. wants to be forward looking, they should talk to Canada about a long-term tritium and helium supply contract.

Edit: Of course, I would imagine it would be in the interest of other countries to do the same while Canada is placing a premium on non-U.S. partnerships.

Is this because:

1. MS over-hired, has too many employees, and not enough work?

2. MS is reaping the benefits of AI and can do the same work with fewer employees?

3. MS has over-invested in data-centres and needs to conserve cash to stay in the game during it's unprofitable phase (assuming it's not a bubble)?

"Because I was first trained as a mathematician, I probably write more like an AI than most people. But that particular article had been through 10 drafts. I worked on it with Claude Fable 5.1 and other large language models, as I now work on nearly everything, but I reviewed every line and rewrote most of them. By draft 10, I could not have said where the machine’s contribution stopped and mine began.?"

...

"The author drafted this essay in extended collaboration with Claude Fable 5.1."

-----------------

If you read a lot of journal articles, you're probably accustomed to occasionally running into articles a ways outside your bailiwick that are written poorly, you don't really understand, which you suspect made it past reviewers who didn't really understand, and indeed, you suspect the authors didn't really understand. Everyone involved just gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were too busy to figure out what the tortured language really meant. However, you don't know for sure, so you decide to leave it up to people in that particular field to deal with.

I can't speak for others, but I find AI writing to be frequently similar in its effect on me to bad writing. Yes, the grammar is correct, but it beats around the bush and puts emphasis on the wrong things. Even if you filter Claude through a human, those poor choices tend to shine through. This subtly inhuman voice switches your brain off. I suspect a lot of bad science is going to slip past reviewers because of LLM writing, and a lot of good science is going to slip past those who might need to read it, because the LLM co-written article switched their brains off and failed to make itself understood.

I understand the notion that, if the content is good enough, it shouldn't matter if the article is written poorly or co-written with AI. However, if the content is good enough, isn't it worth communicating it well?

It's money.

If you have a lot of money and you've managed to stay out of prison, people are generally ready to believe good things about you and want to be in your good graces. If you pay people to continually say good things about you and manage your media appearances for you, there will generally be a lot of impact to that. You're just telling people what they're primed to believe. A lot of people will fluff up your image for free just because they're hoping for patronage.

Musk has a BA in physics that was awarded a couple years after he says he says he completed his studies. Unlike CPSC, leaving a physics program early robs you of some pretty crucial stuff. You generally don't see a lot of rockstar physicists leaving university early to join startups. Despite Musk posing as a rocket scientist, engineering guru, etc., there's no evidence he's one of the scientific or engineering minds behind Tesla or SpaceX's work. He's just a money guy.

The general rule for money guys is that the closer you are to the money, the more of it you can get. This is why CEO's are paid outrageous sums. Musk is the closest guy to the money at his companies, and his one true gift seems to be "getting close" to politicians in order to get the public's money, which Tesla and SpaceX have received gob-smacking amounts of.

If you want a laugh, go look up the episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History addendum where he brought Musk on. Carlin typically interviews authors of history books, so why Musk? Why indeed! During this episode, it comes out that Musk used to have models of WWII planes but clearly knows absolutely nothing about history. Despite this, he makes every effort to sound like he does. This is the sort of exposure $$$ gets you but, sometimes, you miss the mark.

Trump and Musk are both pointing the finger at each other over this. Maybe they were both for it before they found out how bad it would play with (potentially) Republican voters right before the midterms. Now they're both against it and it's the other guy's fault, as per usual with these two.

What matters is that the U.S. has a leader who is behaving as though he's a Russian agent and allows military assets like Starlink to be controlled by private citizens with zero oversight. If either of these guys can turn off an asset like Starlink on a completely undocumented whim, there's a problem.

If you split up an entangled pair of particles and measure them in a the same 50/50 basis simultaneously (sort of like a coin flip) at distantly removed places, the results will be individually random but perfectly correlated when compared with each other. It seems natural to assume that something here was pre-determined. i.e. There's was some kind of hidden information that we haven't found a way to measure yet. The way in which the coin-tosses were going to pan out was determined when the pair of particles were entangled.

Quantum physics makes predictions that suggest this isn't so. You can design experiments (e.g. A Bell inequality test) in which quantum physics predicts correlations that go beyond what would be possible with some hidden local information attached to the entangled particles that we just don't know about. Experiments don't prove theories to be correct. That's not how science works. However, experimental tests of Bell inequalities have pretty conclusively shown that local hidden variable theories are inadequate to explain what's going on.

Yes, it appears what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" seems to propagate close to instantly. It's important to appreciate that you can't transmit information this way though. We can only make sense of the quantum correlations after communicating other information at classical speeds. Sometimes you see quantum entanglement devices allowing FTL communication in sci-fi, but that's pure horse hockey.

That all being said, I don't understand quantum physics either.