What's truly bizarre is the popularity on this site of questioning someone's own stated experience with finding LLM tools useful. On a site called hacker news, that usually celebrates useful computer tools. I'll never understand the obvious luddism here.
Except that many of the people involved do think of it like a football game, and thus it actually is like one. Of course the researchers and engineers at both OpenAI and Google DeepMind have a sense of rivalry and strive to one up another. They definitely feel like they are in a competition.
It is surprising how willing Google is to stretch the truth in the marketing for its AI initiatives. Although it's being compared against 7B models, Gemma "7B" is actually much more than 8B parameters in total.
FWIW, Tesla's market cap is almost 10x BYD's. So the market does not necessarily agree with this assessment. One reason is that Tesla competes exceptionally well in the international luxury car market. BYD pushes a lot of metal at low margins.
This may be a well informed take (or not), but it's hard to think he doesn't have an axe to grind when the first sentence is an information-free put down ending in a clown emoji. Would love to see a more neutral analysis.
One thing worth noting is that one minor reason the dollar is very strong now is that the Fed was actually the first central bank to start raising rates. A better title is probably: "Central banks around the world have made a historic mistake on inflation"
> Just like cryptocurrency mining, it certainly drives shortages and high prices.
The prices for state of the art graphics cards which are only required for mining or gaming are high, but these products actually -subsidize- or lower prices of more generally useful, simpler tech. Please look into the price history of RAM, simple graphics cards (now builtin to many CPUs, which is very economical!) or any other basic computing components.
> Most people who want a car/truck/tractor want a reliable mechanical device
Please find me any source or other evidence that tractors or cars have gotten any less reliable. All studies done indicate the exact opposite of what you are saying. This sounds like a made-up narrative that you happen to want to be true. See: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/cars-reliability-higher-jd-powe...
And I think you are losing track of the original claims you were making about taxes here. For example:
Do the countries in question actually only tax new products, or ALL tech products?
Tech may be a polluter, but again, your claim was that this is what drives the tax policy. Tell me, do these countries tax oil by the same or a greater amount? It's obviously true that environmental concerns _do not_ drive these tax policies.
Are you going to provide an example of tech hardware being used to "control" people? Would love to see some evidence of this outrageous claim.
And I'm really begging you, when you are about to advocate for very high taxes in this area, to consider the effect it has on small businesses.
Wow, I have to say I strongly disagree with every single thing you said.
Video games are a small niche in the universe of technology products. To use them as a justification for classifying all tech as luxury seems, well, extremely stupid and misguided.
I’m surprised you don’t know, but the vast majority of businesses are small businesses with low profits, to act like they have plenty of extra money to spend on heavily taxed goods is ignorant at best. Tech is a productivity multiplier for many businesses, this is not really an arguable point as it is well studied.
By the way, no one is forced to buy tech enabled products (despite the implication in your “crazy show”). People buy tech enabled products over others because they solve their problems better.
And tech products are very low on the list of environmental issues in the world. If the tax was actually structured to promote eco friendly behavior in these countries it’d look wildly different.
You seem to have an axe to grind here but nothing you claim really holds up to a bit of critical thinking. Not sure why an extreme tech pessimist is on HN anyways :)
Everyone criticizing the war in the middle east always seems to casually forget that terrorists from this region hijacked airplanes and destroyed the two tallest buildings in the US with them, killing thousands.
Exactly, the justification for silencing people based on threats from artists makes no sense and relies on circular logic :) Hopefully now you understand why being quick to deplatform anyone who is mildly controversial is a bad idea and too morally absolutist. Here’s a better idea: don’t worry so much about speech you don’t like. The connection between them and actions (what actually matter) is weak at best.
What is considered morally decent or “dangerous” nonsense varies wildly from person to person. Why should Spotify apply Neil Young’s set of morals above all others’ to their platform? Because he said so?
I think removing from their platform whoever Neil Young tells them to would be much more of a special relationship. Do you really think Spotify is inclined to deplatform any podcaster because of threats from an artist? That’d just encourage more and more threats to remove whoever the next artist doesn’t happen to like.
This isn’t really a plausible root cause. These companies in the U.S. that are supposedly acquiring everyone (and they aren’t: there are record numbers of unacquired unicorns and IPOs recently) were small once too. That just begs the question: How did the U.S. get all the large acquirers in the first place?
It's not that weird; longer prompts require more compute. This pricing is directly proportional to the total compute required for a query, which scales with the sum of the input and output sequence lengths.
I'm half surprised that this is one of the most upvoted comments, but also not really because the comments for any FB-related article here are typically a race to the fastest dunk. But there is zero substance to this comment. What specifically did you find audacious? Why did it make you want to take a walk?