ibeckermayer

Trusting the output of an abstraction explicitly designed, engineered, and tested by other humans with an actual understanding of the layer beneath you is not comparable to trusting a non-deterministic, statistical next-word-predictor with no mind or ability to be morally responsible for what it produces.

Your workflow is unusual, oftentimes there is a vigorous back and forth, or a desired output like code generation, etc where a low tk/s drastically effects ux and user productivity.

But the real kicker here is the 90s ttft, that means you ask a question and don't see anything for a full minute and a half.

Cool that it's possible but basically unusable performance characteristics. For an 8192 token prompt they report a ~1.5 minute time-to-first-token and then 8.30tk/s from there. For context ChatGPT is typically <<1s ttft and ~50tk/s.

> Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80? I don't see at all how that's me "basically getting that investment back".

It's a good question, what I think you're missing is that if the market is valuing me (NVIDIA) at 25x revenue then it's more like I traded you (OpenAI) a GPU it cost me $80 to make for $100 worth of OpenAI stock, and I got a bonus $2500 in market cap of my own stock (which existing shareholders like).

IOW for every incremental "$100" in revenue (circular or otherwise), existing shareholders get paid "$2500" in equity (NVIDIA appreciation + OpenAI shares).

This "works" for NVIDIA and its shareholders as long as they/the market keeps thinking $100 of OpenAI stock is a good price for a GPU. If OpenAI tangibly fails to deliver on this valuation then NVIDIA may wind up in the red on these deals.

Caveat: it's a bit more complicated than that as OpenAI doesn't typically buy/operate GPUs directly afaict, rather they team up with the big cloud providers like AMZN (also part of the deal). But it's an useful way to wrap your head around the economics, I think (open to correction, not a domain of professional expertise).

I don't see anything _inherently_ unethical about this as some comments seem to imply. It's definitely riskier than accepting cash, in which case you're free not to play, but it's a calculated risk based on future expectations of growth by OpenAI. Granted there are some sketchy incentives qua existing shareholders that could materialize in pump and dump dynamics.

Utterly brainwashed take only deserving of mockery.

Just flat out false, and embarrassingly so, but spoken with the unearned authority of an LLM. See: The Pirate Bay.

1. Equality under the law is important in its own right. Even if a law is wrong, it isn’t right to allow particular corporations to flaunt it in a way that individuals would go to prison for.

2. GPL does not allow you to take the code, compress it in your latent space, and then sell that to consumers without open sourcing your code.

Pure ad hominem FUD. “This guy sometimes disagrees with scientists employed by the government, don’t listen to him!”.

The technical details are beyond my understanding but I’ve heard from a PhD in the field that Masterjohn’s understanding of metabolism is second to none. Whether his protocols work or not is certainly a case by case matter (like any health protocol), but he always appears to substantiate it with well-cited lines of argument, and is willing to engage with interlocutors.

As for spending years with changing protocols without getting anywhere besides spending lots of money, well that can be said for people with complex issues who go the institutionally approved route as well. It isn’t discrediting in its own right that a protocol didn’t work for some.

I’m not quite understanding: you’re saying you deploy your site one way, then crawl it, then redeploy it via the zipfile you created? And why is SSR relevant to the discussion?

“What’s the hazard ratio for seed oils? Oh we don’t have one? Ok just completely ignore the potential problem then.”