scarmig

This can be just as well phrased as:

> Our frontier AI business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term development because we are making compute trade-offs to support our cloud business revenues.

"Machinic desire can seem a little inhuman, as it rips up political cultures, deletes traditions, dissolves subjectivities, and hacks through security apparatuses, tracking a soulless tropism to zero control. This is because what appears to humanity as the history of capitalism is an invasion from the future by an artificial intelligent space that must assemble itself entirely from its enemy's resources."

Nick Land, "Machinic Desire," 1993.

It's probably too much to ask for a journalist or someone in the literary milieu to know who Nick Land is (or even Deleuze or Mark Fisher, if wanting someone more sanitized).

Which is unfortunate, because his CCRU-era, writhing-on-the-floor, amphetamine-fueled theory-poetry is highly creative and prophetic. We're summoning the Old Ones without reading our Abdul Alhazred.

This post is too long to read. Tldr?

Thanks for writing that out, so I didn't have to do the same but less eloquently :)

The term "attention" confuses more than it reveals, trading well-known terminology for a weak analogy to how the human brain works. Kernel smoothing is all you need.

Quota allocations are a massive decision that go all the way up to Sundar: what GDM organizationally wants (training) vs what GCP wants (Anthropic to throw it money hand over fist) are not aligned and a balance has to be made. For various reasons, GCP carved out a significant share; an eleven figure check over a quarter or two carries a real weight. This doesn't mean that GDM was starved for compute or that it wasn't making significant progress, but it absolutely could have had a more impressive H1 if given more resources.

Coding is probably one of the worst value propositions, in terms of consuming more tokens per subscription dollar. Doing well in coding might even hurt Google's revenues: it would cannibalize some proportion of Anthropic's user base, which Anthropic serves by... renting Google's infra.

I know lots of Palantir employees who have started to kick puppies for fun, to show how based they are.

Stated with an equal amount of evidence as Sankar. Which is to say, entirely invented.

One surprising result is the sub n log n multiplication. Galactic, as one might expect, but if you polled human researchers 24 hours ago, most would say something like it was very unlikely.

AI is capable of developing its own inference hardware, once a prompt is given. The fact that a human happens to kick it off here is not especially relevant to the fact that an AI is performing the task independently. There are plenty of ways a text prompt can be generated: a harness, another LLM, or just removing stop tokens so that once begun the AI will continue until its hardware fails.

It's not clear what this fad of attributing everything an AI does to the human prompting it is supposed to accomplish.

He's done just terrible things, the accusations are true. No one wants to associate with him because of all the bad things he's done. Everyone knows he's a liar, and anyone asking for evidence of it is a perfidious pro-AI ideologue.

So, your claim is that OpenAI intentionally might have had its agents hack multiple companies, as well as multiple government agencies? And they're just pretending to not have known about it?

Okay.

Can you point to a single community or watershed where datacenter usage is even 10% of the agricultural usage in that same community? Or even just name a single community that's facing severe water shortages attributable to data centers?

Sigh. You're supposedly a PhD student. If you think LLMs are evil because of water usage, please, please do the least bit of due diligence and read a bit about it.