gorjusborg

The s/something/other/ patterns are regular expression replaces.

He's saying you can replace 'something' for 'other' in each of those patterns.

There are multiple camps of people, and everyone thinks the other camps are doing it wrong.

- full autonomous camp

- developer augmentation camp

- no-ai camp

The trouble I see with all of it is that the future seems unpredictable at the moment. The costs related to AI are low enough at the moment that full autonomous seems to be possible, but we have reasons to believe that costs will rise significantly, which may change that calculus. The no-AI camp is in ostrich mode, and is betting on this all going away once the bubble pops. The developer augmentation camp treats it like just another tool, which is somewhere in the middle.

The trouble is that even if there is a clear advantage today, the ground truth of costs built in is probably not stable.

I don't think we can say what will happen, but I agree that history offers no guarantees for the future.

I think the current state isn't what the frontier labs are worried about. The real issue is the dynamic that open weight models create.

The frontier labs are investing TONS of capital into training the new 'best model ever'. Today, that doesn't make economic sense, it loses money. So where's the business? The future, where token costs reflect the costs involved.

For that to be corrected, the labs need to get people using the models for things they depend on, then they turn dial up on cost. The ordering there is critical. It has to become indispensable first, then costs go up.

The trouble is, open weight models are rapidly becoming usable in what is looking like the big market: coding. Step 2 (the costs go up) doesn't work if there is a ready off-ramp that doesn't require frontier models.

However, if they can effectively make open weight model development illegal (its dangerous!), their business strategy can remain intact. A nice side effect is that they will be effectively be granted an oligopoly "for humanity's safety".

If they can convince the populace that a text generator is an existential threat to humanity, that's a hard argument to combat.

Edit: I think it is ridiculous that autocomplete on steroids is an existential threat. There's no way anything harmful happens until you actually use it as part of important systems. By that reasoning, you could make it illegal to use AI in important systems, but do you think that's the argument the frontier labs are making to governments?

They see the threat of open weight models, which are approaching the usability of their models.

By arguing that the AI is dangerous, they are really arguing that someone 'trusted' needs to monitor the situation, so that the outcome is aligned with existing power.

They are trying to scare the world into forbidding others the right to use and develop AI.

If you play poker, it is the equivalent of pushing 'portions' of your bet out at a time. You push the portion, observe their face and body language, and maybe push the rest.

The 'that was for my assistant' is just something they say to explain away the earlier quoted price. They are pretending that what they said wasn't the quote for this conversation, it was for another, different conversation, between the salesman and their assistant. This only works when the assistant is not in the call.

I'm not the one here making assertions, I'm asking questions of the person making claims. I'll leave it to others to judge what is 'a lot' or 'reasonable'.

I don't think 'anyone who thinks X is Y' is a good basis for discussion, which is the real point.

From the article:

> Approximately 80% of the water (typically freshwater) withdrawn by data centers evaporates, with the remaining water discharged to municipal wastewater facilities.

I would guess that a dislike for reduce overlaps with a preference with imperative languages.

Filter and map are easy because you can make more assertions about them without inspection:

- they take a list-like as input

- they take a function as input

- they return a list-like as output

As opposed to reduce:

- it takes a list-like as input

- it takes a function as input

The output type is not fixed, and its behavior is not fixed. If you pass the right function, reduce is filter, or map, or something else we've never seen.

I'd have to be pretty sure I could use the hardware forever without a login for me to let it near my systems. Anything with firmware or a security footprint would not qualify.

I might accept a Meta paperclip into my house, but then again, why risk it ;)

Meta's game is to do all sorts of dirty tricks to pull you into its data. No thanks.

Definitely interesting work, but Meta will get nothing from me, as far as I can help it.

No level of convenience will tip that scale.

This point of view is twisted and disturbing.

I'm sorry for those who don't have people in their lives, but machines aren't a substitute, and that lack shouldn't be used to justify a right to unbounded freedom to experiment without regard for the possible negative consequences.