BobbyJo

US companies published their research on transformers. The only reason Chinese companies have any models at all is open US research...

Add distillation to that, and the entire Chinese AI sphere is really just an offshoot of public US AI information...

Minimalist code is necessary to keep AI agents working well for longer than a month on a system IME. At a certain point, their own machinations overwhelm them and they both slow down, and make worse and worse decisions.

This is a good counterpoint.

IIRC, using AI for CSAM and deepfake porn of people is already illegal in the US. That's not so much a lack of law as a lack of a means of enforcement. If you sell people pens and paper, its pretty difficult to stop them from using it to do distasteful things.

This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.

I think it's touching the limit of what one can reasonably expect any intelligent thing to produce with the only direction being "produce an svg of a pelican riding a bicycle".

When you aren't sure if an LLM can write an svg well, or that it will be able to form a pelican shape, or animate a bicycle, it's a good test. After that, it's all judgement: how detailed should the pelican be? pelicans are the wrong shape for a bicycle by default, so how much can I change its physiology to match using a bicycle before it isn't a pelican? Do I care about how well the client is able to render complex geometry?

It's not that there isn't room to do better, or that it doesn't tell you anything at all, but rather we've reached a point where what it tells us isn't very clear anymore.

Yes, I find the K8s codebase pretty easy to read actually, but I am biased since I work with K8s and the codebase makes a lot of sense when you understand what everything does already.

100% with you on every point. It's the only language I've worked in that lets me read other codebases without an hour or two of "wut?" happening, so they did something right!

Social security was created so that money collected day one could be distributed day one. Allowing people to opt out and invest the money is incompatible with the model as a whole.

It's like asking if you can save today's extra heartbeats for when you're older.

Those jobs are much more niche, and require much more specialized knowledge. Google alone probably has more software employees than all of the high paying trading firms combined. It's a possible career path, sure, but its like comparing taxi driver opportunities with stretch limo driver opportunities IMO. Totally different scales.

AI is much more similar to classic cloud/infra with a lot more OSS than finance afaik, and probably already employs more devs than prop firms.

(I'm not counting big bank jobs because those are definitely not high paying)

Almost certainly, outside of standard trade restriction windows. I don't think they have any control over what you do in the market outside of preventing insider trading.

1000000% this. I remember lamenting all through the 2010s that all the high paying jobs were basically ad revenue supported.

Now its AI.

Maybe AI doesn't materialize the way we want, but I'll take that bet over business as usual before every time.

But do they at any useful scale? China is probably the only other country deploying AI at any appreciable fraction of their economy, and it's certainly much less than the US.

> Use that super-intelligence to solve any supply-chain issues you might be facing.

I think this is where a lot of people's thinking goes awry. Unlimited intelligence doesn't mean unlimited resources or instantaneous implementation.

Back then you could spend 6 months making something twice as fast, or wait six months for computers to become twice as fast. People obviously did the latter.

It also became a cycle: People write single threaded code -> CPUs/OSs optimize performance/ergonomics for single threaded programs -> People write single threaded code ->...

It wasn't until scaling slowed down that interest/investment in concurrency/parallelism took off.

No, you're operating within the confines of the system when you vote to change it. Voting to change the system, in the US, is part of the system. By fighting I meant in ways outside of the system. To me its saying both "the system does not apply to me" and "the system should apply to me in a nicer way".

Honest question: Let's say you had a neighbor who was always asking about your daughter and telling you how lovely she is. Then your daughter goes missing. Would you not want you neighbor questioned on the grounds that he was overly focused on your daughter?

Keep in mind that your hypothetical daughter is 20 years old, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with your neighbor liking her a little too much.

Follow up, another neighbor has magnets of a Ford Taurus. Do you think they should be questioned as well, with just as much urgency?

> I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case.

Every lawyer would disagree, but you do you.

> My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility.

Let's say someone is obsessed with classic cars, and their neighbor's classic car goes missing. It then turns up in a storage unit owned by the guy obsessed with classic cars. Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case? Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with loving classic cars.

> Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility?

Again, the zines relevance isn't proving they did it. It's providing context and intent. If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.

The "imminent violence" only matters if the pamphlets were themselves the crime, and they were not. To go back toy earlier example, If I buy a criminal a bus ticket to help them escape, I can be charged with a crime even though bus tickets are perfectly legal.

> Then, finally on top of that 30 years for this seems incredibly excessive.

It is, but if it's in the statutes, then its up to the judge. Obviously they wanted to make an example out of these people.

> We let child sexual abusers in Texas walk free after only 30 days

Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.

> This is the modern Republican party. 30 years for moving political magazines. 30 days for sexually assaulting a child.

I think sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.

> "but what about.."

I don't know.

> Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?

Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well.

> Are these zines even relevant evidence?

Yes.

> Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal?

No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time.

> What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?

If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing.

> Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets.

It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least.

> What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?

Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.

> If someone has committed a crime is that not in some sense "fighting [the] system"?

Of course not. I'm speaking directly about intent. It's pretty obvious to me that most crime is committed without any intent regarding "the system".

> Even in cases of extreme conflict, there is a certain base state of "rights" or "privileges" one wants to be afforded, and it is not contradictory of people to do so. See the laws of armed conflict. Even if someone is a complete psychopath and doesn't respect these laws, the law itself usually does not respond in kind.

Well yeah, but again, I'm not explaining this well, I'm not saying they shouldn't expect or want due process. At issue here is "30 years is too much for X". That's not "my rights are being violated", that's "the system is being especially mean to me with respect to applying the law to me with maximum force".

I think they can expect every legal protection due and that's fine, but the outrage at getting the book thrown at them when they were trying to burn the book is what I find strange.

> But there was never - and is usually never - a state where "legality goes out the window".

My wording was really bad. I didn't mean the state shouldn't follow the law, I just meant on a logical basis the "fight the power, wait no, not that power" position becomes inconsistent IMO.

It's not illegal "because you think its illegal", it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant".

If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.

I'm sorry, I meant in terms of discussion, not in terms of legal proceedings. Obviously these people were formally charged in a court of law on legal grounds and I assume had their constitutional rights afforded to them.

I meant more along the lines of "30 years for hiding a zine" being a weird take. It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.

You don't have to be present for the act to be part of the conspiracy...

If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot, no? Expecting the system you intended to subvert/dismantle to save you is a bit of a weird ask.

It is fairly obvious to me that the open models are a form of "dumping" as far as the economics and the desired outcome from China's perspective. They get to watch as the US pours tons of money and talent into an industry, then prevent that investment from having any return. In 5 years we'll be on equal footing, China will have spent 1/1000th the money, and the only downside will be that they spent 5 years being 6 months behind.

China could not be happier.

The same model is going to apply to the silicon supply chain as well is my guess. 1000th the expenditure in exchange for being a little behind the curve.

I worry it will have a very real chilling effect on research and development, since customers will probably very quickly switch to the thing that costs 1/10th as much, sucking out the ROI.

Yeah, the rationalization after the fact is kind if absurd. IME, the reasoning underlying tokenmaxxing at the corporate level was "we need to leverage AI as much as possible as fast as possible because we're scared our competitors will find some leverage before us".

Definitely not some measured, long term, rational out of the gate.

When a good's supply is constrained, it becomes a store of value. See: gold.

Strangely enough, if housing got built in response to price increases, there would likely be less unused housing, because it would be seen less as a way to store capital.

C code called from other languages has terrible ergonomics. Writing it sucks, debugging it sucks, maintaining it sucks.

I don't know if fusion is the solution, but I know C isn't.