Are you guys affiliated with Meta’s ex-CTO in any way? I remember he famously implied that LLMs hyped. The demos are very impressive. Does this use an attention based mechanism too? Just trying to understand (as a layman) how these models handle context and if long contexts lead to weaker results. Could be catastrophic in the real world!
I think in the long run, we may need something like a batch job that compresses context from the last N conversations (in LLMs) and applies that as an update to weights. A looser form of delayed automated reinforcement learning.
Or make something like LoRA mainstream for everyone (probably scales better for general use models shared by everyone).
in effect, broadly anti-AI communities like bsky succeed by the sheer power of universal hate. Social policing can get you very far without any technology I think
I'm all for that, but how would this realistically work? Given enough effort you can produce AI content which would be impossible to tell if it's human-made or not. And in the same train of thought - is there any way to avoid unwarranted hate towards somebody who produced real human-made content that was mistaken for AI-content?
From my perspective, the issue is quite simple: progress optimizes everything other than the cost of human labor. Socialization, as defined today, inherently requires human labor, and thus falls under the Baumol effect.
The 'loneliness epidemic' is merely the result of weakening demand, owing to a slew of low-cost alternatives. Thus, we end up with two options,
1. automate the social experience
2. accept that the comparative cost of socialization will grow higher forever
For some reason, the vast majority of humans in the 21st century are interested in morally rejecting (1), thus ensuring (2) as an outcome.
.
Note: this is not to say I reject the notion that individuals can be helped. I think most comments in this thread are quite healthy, even as they narrowly focus on the individual case.
But it is rather impractical to adopt a positivist "how you can help" framing to address the epidemic at large. While certainly instrumentally useful, it is necessarily unlikely for the same traditional solutions to loneliness to spontaneously 'gain influence' against what has thus far been a gradual decline in their effectiveness and buying power.
It's branched from how I think about TFR. To merge,
- the common sentiment of "child raising is too expensive"
- the reality that wealth has drastically gone up
I think: okay, it must feel expensive for some reason. Probably because the work involved, despite not changing too much in an absolute sense, is relatively much pricier compared to all modern cheap sources of happiness.
Then, this notion of the cost-of-fun is easily transferred to general socialization & the loneliness problem.
Nice. You are looking at it from an Economic Cost pov.
There is also a psychological concept of "Social Surrogates" which is fundamental here; see Social Surrogates, Social Motivations, and Everyday Activities: The Case for a Strong, Subtle, and Sneaky Social Self - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/bookseries/abs...
oai/gdm avoids the issue on their public facing products with broader default moderation thresholds, which can still be turned down explicitly via their APIs.
xai's only failure was to implement this modicum of damage control against social exposure
note that the first chunk of the piece spends time to analogize SV to the CCP, in terms of its willingness to take attacks (of humor).
So, for your quote, a skeptical interpretation of the text may assert the author was merely praising SV in the same fashion one might appraise the party.
I don't care who the next hegemon will be; US or China. But please pray, can these people tell what their next strategy is for the rest of the world after the Cold War ends. Will the next regime advance sciences further after whichever side wins the Cold War? Can't that be done without the war? US has been hegemon since last 5 or so decades; has it worked out best even ONLY for the Americans if not for the rest of the world. I will ask a very obvious question taught as a intuition pump by Daniel Dennett, "Then What? Then What? Then What?". Do these blob forces have post-Cold War steps figured out for the best of humanity, if not for whole of humanity but a national subset.
from my understanding, US strategy "for the world" is "you sell me things, I sell you dollars, do democracy or else" - while best China guess seems to be "build business, together, don't push your agenda on others or else" (as with anything, these will change over several decades tho)
but main divide seems to form on "ngo vs government" lines, imo - and ironically the exact opposite way of the proclaimed "authoritarian China vs USAID america" of the previous decade-or-two. (As always, best path is somewhere in the middle between the two)
the main thing that will happen for sure - globalization, unification into bigger and bigger pieces will continue. Sure, big pieces might go further from each other - but smaller ones will will get closer and closer (unless we all die, of course)
The way China have done/do "business" with non-Han ethnicities is a very creative way of abiding by the maxim "don't push your agenda on others".
All jokes aside, current China and current US administration believe in "might makes right", like any criminal gang. They both like to abolish the rules based order, any smaller "piece" will be on the menu in this school of thought.
I don't know if it's that hard to figure out, at least in the short-term. China's #1 goal should be to keep the value of their currency stable and push hard on the neoliberal expansionist path. If the United States' financialized economy starts to sag, this is China's opportunity to provide discount stability to the nations that China needs as allies.
Even if it’s a goal, it’s not a plan. The article talks about it, but Biden’s push for manufacturing wasn’t very aggressive, and Trump has basically stopped it. We’ve seen a loss in manufacturing jobs from tariffs and Trump idiotically deported Korean engineers working in local battery production plants. Simply protecting our existing companies (which are not very efficient, see shipbuilders) is not even close to enough to competing
The US doesn't have a plan, it has a framework. The framework allows it to be nimble in a way that centralized economies (like China) can never match. My money's on the US out-competing everyone else in the long run.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you are serious. The USA’s framework is to just wish for things to happen and then be surprised when those things don’t happen. There is basically no executing plan beyond grifting money to a few corporations because they supported the president during the election.
Seriously, and we have one of the most centrally planned economies in existence, it's just controlled by the elites rather than through democratic norms as it was during the new deal coalition.
The "US plan," is driven by the executive office. That is to say, the by the US president.
Insofar as there is any plan, the current officeholder's priorities are to project the appearance of personal power on television. If you're wondering what's going on strategically, don't go thinking that there's some grand plan, or even an intention to benefit the United States in the long term. There are some people in the cabinet who are thinking long term, but that's not universal, and that's not what they're selected for. Every action that is taken is to satisfy the president's narcissism and ego in the present moment. You have to understand the "US plan" in this light for anything coming out of the executive office to make sense.
It all falls into place if you contemplate the possibility that there is no US.
There's stock market bros, kill people bros, government welfare bros and some mega business bros.
None of them want to know anything beyond my kids go to private school, get nepo baby job.
This is what humans are capable of - not just in USA, as a species. USA's 'plan' or rather inevitability is to fall apart. China will be the next power and it'll also fall apart, like USSR fell apart and USA is falling apart for the world to see.
Maybe in another few thousand years it'll be different, I doubt it. Read Plato's Republic you're above 140 IQ - it spells it all out so nicely that one you grok it, you need not know much of anything else regarding politics.
Too bad it’s not true. China has wanted this for a long long time. They view their relative weakness vs the West as humiliating and temporary, and want to correct that by any means available.
reply