gfody

yea it makes me wish for some kind of highly organized underground structured content network where people serious about archiving could share their private collections without being accused of piracy - I've sunk some thought towards one here: https://github.com/gfody/p2p/blob/main/essays/roots-network....

considering how the frontier labs have become the ultimate pirates and gotten away with it I wonder if "the people" would be able to do the same

> $25m isn't some small amount of money

it kind of is, relatively - sean might just be having a galaxy blackhole supercluster installed at home for all we know

> It doesn't scale .. They pivoted to inference

they have more options than non-wafer-scale solutions, the chips are going 3d and meanwhile they benefit from the same interconnect progress as the wholly memory-bound alternatives

> Ah, investor. Explains your responses.

physician heal thyself like your not out here tryna manifest your short

that's an automatic, prenegotiated sell off - calling that dumping is worse than calling the ceo a felon (at least one is technically true). are any of the big ai companies actually profitable? how has cerebras not gotten their chip right? they're the only company shipping wafer scale inference hardware, and they're shipping to the largest labs in the world. and it works - I use cerebras.ai the token rate is amazing

yea this isn't "and another example just off the top of my head" - this guy co-founded seamicro then cerebras both pretty badass companies, he was a vp of marketing not ceo when the sec sued not just him but the entire executive team. trudging up 20 year old nonsense to try and punch a guy who legit deserves his success is bullshit

house opened my eyes to this problem. trying to reconstruct a version with the video resolution of the bluray but the original soundtrack of the dvd turned out to be a deep rabbit hole.

the sense of community on the internet from 1995 to 2010 was incredible. industry devs running into tricky situations and just asking for help on irc, newsgroups like comp.lang.*, then forums, places like expert-sexchange and gamedev.net - the people that helped were like heroes and mentors and the urge to pay it forward was real and strong. stackoverflow was cool when it first launched - then something happened to it, like someone unleashed a hundred thousand pent up devs from an underground cave where they had been torturing them with mind games where they're forced to sabotage each other and stuff like collaboration and encouragement was punished - all rushed in at once like a lethal injection and the sense of community was soon dead

I suspect that a lot of the stuff everyone recognizes as AI-isms/writing tics - is actually just the way genX'ers sounded when they were explaining things to strangers on the internet

> I may be very much in the minority here

you are not the minority, yours is the prevailing attitude on HN (and also the policy - AI-assisted writing is not welcome here) calling out AI isms and smells while ignoring the substance has become sport and an ugly look (IMO) especially with Pangram and sites like (https://www.salahadawi.com/hacker-news-ai-detector) automatically scanning everything that hits the frontpage (using the older/buggier version of Pangram no less)

> what are the chances someone randomly is a great writer

a lot better than folks who love pointing out "AIisms" and Pangram scores would have you believe. for starters just being a wife of nine years and a mother suggests at least a few decades of experience using language - that's already enough to be a better "writer" than a lot of people trying harder without the experience.

nope - either gets you a HashAggregate, GroupAggregate, or Unique depending on whether the column/input is indexed/ordered

another day another gatekeeping rant

automatic meeting summaries in particular aren't using the best models, I see speech to text mistakes constantly. it's like using the best model to process hundreds of hours of video conference per week would cost too much, but on the other hand doing it with a cheap model is worse than not doing it at all - especially if you relieved the scribe thinking ai had you covered

> elitism is healthy and good

demanding that people not use a technology that makes expression accessible to them, and insisting that they can only produce the sort of slop that you're sick of seeing, is not just elitist - it's indignantly pompous. it's neither healthy nor good - it's hateful and hurtful

> ..they outsourced their posting to a call center guy in the third world

nobody actually does this though - this exaggerated caricature dwells only in the hateful mind. to be fair there are content farms as there always have been and ai slop is bellowing from their stacks, but the article we're commenting on and your sentiment are not aimed at them - they're targeting the people we're not used to hearing from who might have interesting things to share now that technology is helping them organize their thoughts. you want to say "if you needed ai to organize your thoughts, your thoughts aren't worth organizing" there's nothing good or healthy about that sentiment - you think you're "demanding literacy of educated adults" but actually you're demanding a particular kind of linguistic fluency you happen to value - that's not a defense of literacy it's hallmark elitist gatekeeping

there's a say-do gap in play - similar to makeup/no-makeup studies: people claim to prefer natural/no-makeup while behavioral research reveals a preference for subtle/light/professionally-applied makeup

when it comes to ai people love to claim to hate it outright - this thread is full of descriptions of ai writing being impossible to read, totally incoherent, and superlatively bad/worse than average human writing. meanwhile evidence suggests that we might actually kind of like ai writing - with a growing portion of samples making hn's frontpage (https://www.salahadawi.com/hacker-news-ai-detector/state-of-...)

I've seen my share of ai slop and I get where the rage is coming from - I think folks could do a lot better than shouting down every use of ai as slop, especially while hypocritically using ai in their own writing. the pompous elitism on display in this thread alone is gross even for hn

> People who rarely produced original writing are suddenly producing

these posts are beginning to make me wince. ai is giving voice to a lot of folks we probably wouldn't even be hearing from otherwise - because not everyone does their thinking in articulate prose, and extracting their realizations as shareable language takes effort, or long, embarassing iterations with ai "workshopping" to get to something they can read back and go yes this is what I am trying to say.

now the sentiment is that whatever these people had to say they could have just come out and said it - and that would be more passionate and less disjointed - no, not necessarily, and the more it gets repeated the more it's sounding elite and pompous to me. for example this:

> I had someone write me a personal message about a sensitive topic that was clearly workshopped with AI in an effort to nuance the conversation and not offend me. But the message became impersonal, dispassionate, and disjointed. It had all of the parts, but it didn’t make sense as a whole. I wasn’t interested in reading it, or responding.

this reads as someone choosing to ignore a personal message about a sensitive topic - because of an assumption they made about their writing: that they workshopped it when they should not have - because whatever it was they were struggling to say they should have isntead trusted the author to be able to understand the precise meaning of their raw, inelegant thoughts no matter how embarrassed they might be to share them in that form. they're complaining about a message they probably weren't otherwise going to see.

these entirely unprompted autonomous hallucinations are becoming a problem - thank god we have Pangram to spot and kill them!

> Fixing grammer mistakes wont change the soul.

Pangram disagrees, if your grammar was fixed by AI it's "100% Written by AI"

there's a growing contingent of anti-ai extremists shouting down anything that looks or feels like the thing they hate: actual slop. but there's a missing understanding of where slop really comes from - "you used ai instead of thinking" is just another guess, and mostly wrong since you literally cannot use ai without thinking - the prompts don't write themselves.

slop has been around a lot longer than ai - the contingent needs to realize what it is they hate. instead of "don't use ai to write" it's "don't use ai to write slop" or better: "don't write slop"

in my experience it’s pretty common to find big inverted indexes for text directly in the database - not necessarily large docs but certainly free text records in volume. using bm25 and unicode’s breakiterator is a very good way to build it. like putting lucene in the database basically - makes a lot of sense when the database is already large. places that bend over backwards to move search out of the db are usually trying to avoid having a very large db (and often end up with one anyway, getting the worst of both worlds)

when I was in school we were taught that the human brain was really two brains - the left and right hemispheres. it seemed to explain how you could learn a skateboard trick in your normal stance, then have to learn it again switch.

should throw in a tt-quietbox

25 years ago the agile manifesto taught us to go extreme by taking our well written, sea-level consistent use case documents and shredding them into user stories, that can fit on stick-its. it's a pretty good idea assuming you actually had something to shred - but then we started writing user stories instead, sea-level depending on who wrote it, functional cats mixing with non-functional dogs, under water and then raining frogs.. soon said the devs: we don't need no stinkin' docs

even if you reject, later on some app from their store won't work until you accept

> Including you and me?

I don't know about you but I would love to get my hands on a raw frontier base model - and a 16 node galaxy blackhole supercluster to talk to it. the capabilities currently being loboptimized for are just a narrow market-shaped slice that cheaper models can distill a competitive subset of but the untapped power of the base is a true technical moat.

about the benchmarks: the difference between a distilled competitive subset and the untapped base might be the difference that matters in any given task

the capability gap is underestimated. the raw unaligned base model from a pretrain is like the telemetry recorded from a particle accelerator - it's hugely valuable and not just because of the cost sunk building a collider.

the things are kept under air-gapped national weapons grade security measures not because it's literally going to escape and threaten the world but because if somebody walked out the door with a copy they would have everything. the capabilities we see at the surface are mostly the result of mining the great unknown space and attaching feeble control surfaces, ablating/lobotomizing dangerous areas, and fencing off illegal/secret/embarrassing ones.

> has no moat

I would love to see someone try to escape with a copy of openai's raw unaligned base model

I agree that calling all this "psychosis" is motivated primarily by a desire to make the person in question look or sound crazy, and is plainly irresponsible on that front.

chatbots being able to evoke real manic episodes in otherwise healthy people is basically true, though - folie a deux doesn't require both participants to have some disorder, and the AI is packing all of them (and the harm is real, there has been something like 30 MDS cases already)

I wouldn't've backed down from "true AI psychosis" everybody has the programming for a psychotic experience - it's not just latent psychosis from a pre-existing condition. chatbots can faithfully reproduce a folie a deux spiral for anybody

it's a rampant misconception that something needs to be mind-like to make new prints from the cast. scaling up produced higher fidelity prints from a higher resolution cast. not knowing in detail why activation heads work as well as they do is besides the point when we are clearly reproducing the human behavior that created the prints in the first place - in other words our behavior, plagiarized at scale - shrugging about how mysterious that is while committing hundreds of millions to snatch up more personal data sources is a little dishonest

pretending that it's something like a mind at all is what's misleading. it's more like a cast of a bunch of overlapping/entangled thinkprints, and pushing activation through it produces new prints. it can already "love" because that behaviors in the data along with hate and everything else.

acting like the behavior is alien or unexplained is the dishonest part. they know exactly where the behavior comes from - why else spend hundreds of millions securing more and more data sources

calling machine-learned human behavior an "alien mind" that we must "teach how to love" is feeling very off to me. it's misleading in a way that feels dishonest, like don't think about where the behavior came from marvel at it and fear it instead.