dnnehgf · HackerTrans

it depends on what you mean by power and details and handing off and whom you are handing them to and what you are getting handed in return and your counterparty's relationship to these things and the extent to which you measure things in the same way as one another.

dnnehgf

3일 전discuss

sam must have read my comment.

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

i sometimes open a text and then close it and a week later i remember i forgot to respond. so i guess what i'm saying is: it happens. they were probably busy with other things and lost track of time.

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

i've had it. i'm tired of reading about these same stupid companies. i am going to start a new company and run these dopes into the ground so that i don't have to read about them anymore.

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

my read is that everyone wins (but especially big tech) in the open weight world — except anthropic and openai. (i suspect even google could live with the open weight scenario; they are in a sense the only tech company that is perfectly hedged in this respect.)

this is presumably part of why openai and anthropic have not been shy about advertising the scarier strains of their models, these past few months; they basically have to force the white house's hand or risk being commoditized among the various other options in a microsoft/openrouter dropdown.

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

is the revolution a social emanation of an economic adjustment or an economic emanation of a social adjustment?

who can say!

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

fortunately the scientific method is here to defibrillate this flattening line with a pulse of Original Chaos.

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

entropy is growth. why would you name your company zeroentropy

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

same

dnnehgf

4일 전discuss

yes, this seems to me to be the reason why these three companies want open weight. everyone wins (but especially big tech) in the open weight world except anthropic and openai. i suspect even google could live with the open weight scenario; they are in a sense the only tech company that is perfectly hedged in this respect.

i suppose this is part of why openai and anthropic have not been shy about advertising the scarier strains of their models, these past few months; they basically have to force the white house's hand or risk being commoditized among the various other options in a microsoft/openrouter dropdown.

dnnehgf

5일 전discuss

yeah my read is that this industry was for a long time underlevered; these companies were generating so much cash that the only meaningful candidates for investment were in effect moonshots with highly unpredictable returns, and you can't fund those bets with debt.

but now the story is different. while the effects of ai on other industries and classes may be unpredictable, (a) the tendency toward ai itself (the market demand for economically useful intelligence) seems plausibly more inevitable than any tendency in the history of capitalism (certainly more inevitable than any in the history of these big tech companies) and (b) the technical scaling laws have been eerily steady (intelligence as log of compute). taken together, (a) and (b) make it much easier to finance than anything meta or google or microsoft have ever worked on. there are risks, but there is at least also a model, a projection; that model did not formerly exist, for these companies. anything outside their core business was literally a guess.

the upshot of these stabilizing patterns is that the industry is in a certain sense just maturing. that is, its financial profile is starting to look more like other mature industries that are mostly juggling around known quantities to try to get a small edge that they can, with financial leverage, magnify enough to M&A the competition away and thereby secure the only relief possible in a well-delineated, well-populated niche: monopoly by scale/consolidation rather than by differentiation. (which is not to say that these mature industries are less competitive! they are actually more competitive; the intensity of the competition is what drives the "anti-competitive" behavior.)

dnnehgf

5일 전discuss

quick you are a saas company pulling 3b cash annually how do you deploy it

dnnehgf

5일 전discuss

i imagine if i were a mathematician i too would be sublimating my existential crisis into a taxonomy of apocalypses, right about now.

dnnehgf

19일 전discuss

it's interesting to watch a bunch of iq-worshipping rationalists learn in real time that above some threshold greater intelligence does not matter much to people, except insofar as it allows them to spend less time doing the thing they hate: working, that is, any activity where the whole point is to be done with it. most of life is not like that. work is like that. so work is where greater [1] intelligence could in principle be valuable.

[1] to use this "greater" we have to imagine we live in the fantasy world where we can measure it in one dimension.

dnnehgf

21일 전discuss

good list.

if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, i would pay you $1 per day.

but if you were to send me an article containing a new one of these each day, with citations, plus a bunch of econ theory rationalizing it, i would pay you $0.

dnnehgf

22일 전discuss

ai marketing slop, running the old financial playbook of burying a simple, undecidable thesis beneath so many layers of inflated numbers and opaque jargon that you cannot understand their plan without first getting the vague impression that they know countless small things that you do not know about something very big that everyone knows. but they don't. they don't know sht.

dnnehgf

지난달discuss

that's a large number

dnnehgf

3개월 전discuss

lfg lads. throw that weight

dnnehgf

3개월 전discuss

figures 10 and 11 in the paper are interesting.

i suppose at a high level this works because it is much easier for the evaluator to generate tests with fuzzing than it is for the model to probe.

this method somehow clarifies the way in which code generation is curve fitting, where the output curve is some linear transformation of the inputs.

kind of satisfying that when all is said and done, and we have a machine that can fit curve descriptions as well as or better than humans, we won't be any closer to explaining how anything really works.

dnnehgf

4개월 전discuss

satoshi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=show...

adam back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101601;sa...

page through each of those profiles and search for the following strings:

")." "(i" "(e" "nor"

you find:

1. adam back is constantly writing full sentences in parentheses with a period standing outside the end parenthesis. so, for example: "To review it will be clearer if you state your assumptions, and claimed benefits, and why you think those benefits hold. (Bear in mind if input assumptions are theoretical and known to not hold in practice, while that can be fine for theoretical results, it will be difficult to use the resulting conclusions in a real system)."

that is non-standard, and satoshi never does it. when he (very rarely) uses parentheses for full sentences he either (a) (in a few cases) does not use a period at all (which is also non-standard), or (b) (in a single case) he puts it on the inside of the parentheses. back can barely get through a single long post without a full-sentence parenthesis. satoshi very rarely uses a full-sentence parenthesis.

2. back uses "(ie" and "(eg" very often. satoshi never uses these.

3. satoshi never uses "nor." back uses it very often.

comments