sifar

The argument is a bit more nuanced than this. Historically, the failed paths on the way to proving a theorem led to newer avenues. When this is cognitively offloaded to an llm we are missing out on those developments which the process generated.

Nobody Knows. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Having cash in reserve to deploy in the aftermath of a crash is golden. If that happens you look great, if that doesn't happen for the next 5 years, you miss out on the interim gains.

Keep investing, diversify, have some reserves. Try to be less anxious about things. Exercise, sleep, be grateful for things you have.

and some ... experience, actual lived experience.

used cars also appreciated in value during the covid supply chain crisis.

The point is it is temporary and long term they are still a depreciating asset.

(Lots of interesting discussions in this thread)

There is another aspect that gets missed in this and is not given due attention (because it is not in the interest of the attention generators).

What you say might come to pass and pay gets reduced or jobs are lost, but guess what skilled people with access to the same AI will do - they will start out competing bigger organizations.

During industrialization, capital dictated who could build the factory and the machines and that limited the skilled workers. While that is true to an extent right now with the data centers, when those data factories are available for anyone to stamp out their product, it is the slower/non monopolistic organizations that will get cannibalized. And when that starts happening, there will be some rethinking about access to AI.

This isn't being voiced (or realized) yet but, AI is a threat to corporate personhood - in terms of capability and liability.

Ofcourse all this being predicated on AI delivering on its productivity promise and the world not being swamped by slop.

If there is one thing I have realized after reading quite a few science fiction books, it is that I don't want to live in any one them - not one.

Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who think that is the future everyone should live in and are actively working to bring it about.

And so, one must adapt. .

Every provider has a primary incentive for users to consume more tokens.

I like this framing, like Schrödinger's cat.

We are going around in circles. When we are doing something, we won't be able to do a thousand other things we could be doing. Only the future can tell whether that turns out to be great or not, however, how we react to those experiences is under our control.

Millions of people live about the way you have described, doing manual chores (perhaps out of necessity), and may be they are missing out on the joys of commenting on HN or may be I am indeed missing out on something when I eschew some degree of manual work (I have experienced this).

The point is not automating stuff, it is what do you do when you have automated the boring stuff that is matter - do you just scroll your feed ? Not to mention that some amount of boredom is necessary to make us value the interesting aspect of life.

OP is more correct than you realize. Your judgement of how life was is in the past, while what your life is in the now.

>> I'm sure you don't grow your own potatoes.

That, is also a thought terminating cliche. Sure we want to choose what we spend time on, however, we don't know what experiences will meaningfully contribute to our lives. It is only after we have gone through them that we realize which ones were significant. And these vary for everyone.

I think it is both. The individual realities of living beings adds a layer on top of the actual physical universe.

Our priors shape how we perceive the things around us.

If an observer cannot distinguish between an illusion and reality, it becomes their reality, not necessarily the reality or those of others who can.

It becomes a problem when sufficient number of people suffer from this, or those in important decision making places.

They talk about developing and using TileLang which they ported to Huawei's 950 GPUs.

And it makes sense, as these LLMs become more capable in coding abilities - people will use them to develop their own abstractions to work on different HW. You cannot have it otherwise. If SaaS companies get threatened that their SW doesn't have a moat why do you expect Nividia's SW to have moat ? The computing algorithms are not even proprietary. It is only a matter of whether someones cares about it and is committed. This should be encouraging for new AI chip development companies.

The very progress that Nividia enables also has a negative feedback that threatens it.

>> As you can understand, during V3 training, NVIDIA GPUs were still used, but the NVIDIA ecosystem was no longer employed.

Ironic that these large LLMs are eroding Nividia's moat. In the next paragraph he talks about Nvidia digging its own grave. I wonder if Nividia is aware of this and the frequent release cycle is a response to this development ?