This is likely being solved with stuff like watermarking which Anthropic just added to Claude... I'd imagine they are testing new data and verifying that training data (or at least the data which do NOT want to be AI generated, i.e actual human text) is not generated, at least with claude.
Right… unfortunately my 9800x3d and 5090 setup can’t process a 15 year old desktop app transition in under a second even though they have a coding god making all their decisions hahah
That’s a good point… you would think AGI would be better at being a copyright lawyer than any human would be and as such would be able to distinguish whether something is “copyright infringement” or not… so the system prompt should just include “make judgement calls on reproducing copyrighted material under the full scope of the legal framework in place” or something.
The thing is, it currently doesn't matter if AGI objectively concludes that a particular thing is or isn't copyright infringement, because the human arbiter who holds the last word might still disagree.
Well I mean, based on what I said, if we truly did have “AGI” then the “AGI” would be able to argue it’s 100% correct point in court according to copyright law, no human intervention. Yes there is lawyers and judges who are making calls in court but allegedly it would be able to construct a concrete argument right? That would hold up in court. Without any buts or ands. Not disagreeing with you, I agree as of now it wouldn’t hold up. But a true “AGI” would be able to pander to anyone better than any PERSON could.
The whole architecture of current LLMs just is not conductive to AGI, it's just marketing hype. In my opinion current LLMs aren't even AI, they're just fancy machine learning algorithms
I was considering our interchange yesterday. I apologize for my rude manner in expressing my views. I do appreciate that you have the conscientiousness to engage with your detractors. From my perspective the whole AI Revolution has been deranged in many ways and it has perhaps deranged me as well. I do hold passionate views at odds with some of yours (and many others on this website). It does feel like an existential threat, so I don’t know if respectful calmness is appropriate in all circumstances. One must fight for your beliefs at the end of the day. But I’ll think about channeling my rage differently.
Someone who is disinterested in AGI does not make a hard transition in their career into uncritically promoting the products of the only two companies which have stated their goal is to create AGI. One example of this contradiction appears above. Another appeared in a previous thread where you meekly pretended your pelican benchmark is evidence against the power of AI tools. It is obvious you don’t think this because you frequently describe these AI outputs as ‘lovely’ etc. A third appeared when you took a performative stance against AI engineers who do not understand or take responsibility for their software, while simultaneously representing yourself as a person who cannot believe this is a real problem.
If your definition of "critical" is "this stuff is all bullshit and doesn't work" then no.
If you're looking for coverage that talks about what doesn't work as well as things that do then I've been persistently providing that for four years now.
Plus prompt injection, AI misuse, AI ethics... I consider all of those part of my "beat" in covering this industry.
Interestingly I don’t think this stuff is all bullshit and doesn’t work, and haven’t at least since 2022. My angle is that AI is powerful and harmful. Your work is in support of making it more powerful and more harmful, and looks a lot like an effort to push us toward AGI, not away from it. Is a musket more or less harmful than a modern rifle, and for whom?
Since we’re pulling random posts, was your blog post celebrating going out with your family while Claude wrote a large project for you an instance of your critical stance on AI capability? Have your many enthusiastic posts about increased AI capability shown a critical stance?
By uncritical I was trying to convey something like “without awareness or concern for the consequences of one’s own actions” and “without concern for one’s moral responsibility”. You are a better writer than I am so I’ll defer to you on whether or not this is incorrect usage. I agree that you criticize the products at the product level. This is what someone who wants to make the products better does. It is not what someone presenting as a journalist or reporter keeping an institution in check does. A journalist or reporter of government who gives tips to the administration by pointing out how they can dismantle institutions faster would be uncritical in their role, I think; this is just an analogy.
I’ll give you credit in my book for raising the questions. I find the answers lacking in an honest engagement with the questions however, which is worse than not answering them in some ways. It is not plausible that the answer to whether or not a certain controversial method is ethical boils down to an anecdote expressed in four sentences. What if the result of the port causes everyone involved in the original to give up? What if this capability causes people to harm themselves because they now have no economic value? What if doing the thing was meaningful at one point and now it is not? These are sub-questions I have when reading this question. There are many others.
The question you were most interested in engaging with was Does this format of development hurt the open source ecosystem, which has some overlap with the previous one in all fairness. Your answer to this is framed around the productive output of the open source community, not around the well-being of those involved. This misrepresents the question as stated. You also begin by suggesting all detractors are of lesser status and so their opinions can be ignored.
> What if the result of the port causes everyone involved in the original to give up? What if this capability causes people to harm themselves because they now have no economic value?
Yeah, this is one of the harms of Ai That I don't think is discussed nearly enough: the psychological toll it has on people who see it as devaluing their work and potentially their entire careers.
(I've been calling that "Deep Blue".)
I've been trying to find ways to help there by consistently emphasizing that these tools amplify existing expertise and, if anything, make our skills more valuable than they were before. I do believe that to be true.
My overall approach to all of this has been that I don't think it will be uninvented or banned, so the best we can do is figure out how to apply it as positively as possible and help bring by as many people along with us.
See also "slop" - I helped amplify that term precisely because it's such a great way of classifying negative applications of AI, and hopefully helping stigmatize them.
Hopefully all of the above demonstrates that, while I may not live up to your high standards, I am at least in a different category from the breathless AI boosters that infest Twitter and LinkedIn.
I hope that people who follow my work develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of LLMs as a result.
> I've been trying to find ways to help there by consistently emphasizing that these tools amplify existing expertise and, if anything, make our skills more valuable than they were before. I do believe that to be true.
I don’t understand why you would believe this when the opposite view is the natural one based on the history of capability increase over the last several years. The tools can now operate at an expert level in many domains and there’s no signs of the capability increase slowing. With this investment in infrastructure, surely the models today will be terrible compared to the ones 2 years from now. Moreover, the goal of these companies is to displace work, not augment it. And I have yet to see them fundamentally err in a single one of their predictions, to my great distress. You simply do not achieve a 25-30 trillion dollar total addressable market by merely augmenting workers.
(There are several reasons I disagree with this point but I digress.)
> I am at least in a different category from the breathless AI boosters that infest Twitter and LinkedIn.
You are the one whose work Anthropic plants Easter eggs of in their product releases. I don’t know what they say on X. I doubt they have the same influence. I have seen many people express incredible contempt for humanity in support of this AI revolution though.
> My overall approach to all of this has been that I don't think it will be uninvented or banned, so the best we can do is figure out how to apply it as positively as possible and help bring by as many people along with us.
We agree that it’s not going to be uninvented. I really am afraid that “us” is just a tiny minority of people who will benefit enormously from this to the detriment of most of the others.
Depends on the rest of your hardware, and how the the n-gram weights work and if they can be streamed from SSD. If they can and you have 64GB system ram then you should actually be able to run it.
I've been running 27B a lot, I am honestly shocked at how well it performs. It's mind blowing how well the small qwen models (and particular, the 3.8 model) runs locally. It can create some really impressive toy coding projects. I haven't really done too much integrating into my actual workflows because I pay $100 for Claude Max, but I can see it being pretty helpful in that.
I live right next to a micro center and remember when they started offering that deal... still so pissed at myself for not buying one. I ended up just buying a raspberry Pi for what I was doing, but seeing as where the prices are now, I messed that up a bit. Also my worst sin was not buying 64GB of DDR5 when I was doing my computer upgrades back in August last year.
I returned an M4 Mac mini, 64GB, unopened... because I thought it was excessive for my needs then. I swear it'll be one of the things flashing before my eyes when this all ends.
I feel so incredibly lucky I chose to overdo it a bit on RAM when I upgraded last year... though I remember deliberating to go for 192GB (it's 96GB now) but motherboard support was somewhat more complicated and it felt like a waste of 300 euros...
Out of all of my home servers, the M4 Mac Mini is probably my favorite and runs many workloads even though it sits on a 96 core Epyc server now (needed the massive amounts of PCIe for something else). I was able to upgrade my SSD with a 3rd party one, not that sticking an NVMe drive on one of the thunderbolt ports would have been a bad pick. About the only place it didn't make sense is if you wanted a ton of RAM.
This is pretty cool. Implemented something similar myself (a really small language model with ~10M params) just to teach myself the ML behind the LLMs. Did not implement it in C obviously, just use PyTorch, but it's interesting to go through the c file and see how he has implemented stuff I took for granted in Python in C.
Anyway, I just tested this out myself on my AMD Ryzen 9 9800x3d. I got 7647173 tok/sec using karpathy's Shakespeare dataset https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karpathy/char-rnn/master/d.... Going to play around with it and see if I can get a CUDA kernal built to see what it could do on a 5090. Claude estimates with napkin math that we could get around 2B tok/s
At this point I believe that when people do not cite using AI to generate their comment it's from a position of malice... like you're intentionally trying to position yourself as capable in whatever subject you're talking on but realistically you are not given the reliance on an LLM. Not saying anything about OP but just a general observation/opinion I've been building recently. Seems more common than ever to larp using AI.
I did it once when I tried vibecoding, to a friend, nothing professional, and I watched myself stop at the explanation of how I did something. I think it comes from a place of desire, self delusion and shame (of not being able to do it alone), very similar to lying in general, people lie about what they want to be the truth.
It's so obvious when a book is generated by an LLM that I would blame the person buying the book moreso than I would the person who generated it for it. You can tell in a few sentences if something is AI generated (and by proxy - if it's worth reading or not).
I think using LLMs to research is completely fine, as long as authors would take the information and synthesize their own opinions based on the findings. I read books/articles/posts/comments to hear other PEOPLE's opinions, not LLM generated opinions.
What country/region of country (if US) do you live in? Everyone I know absolutely hates it and hates the direction things are going. I'm pulling from a wide sample here too -- I have a lot of friends who work blue collar jobs that hate it just as much as my tech worker friends. However I will say I'm in my late 20s and it seems like my age group and younger are more anti-AI than any other age bracket.
reply