Ive has made hits in the past.
In hindsight, it might be a cheap acquihire.
3,022 karma · joined June 30, 2016
https://medium.com/@ijidak https://www.linkedin.com/in/ayo-ijidakinro-3a32b1b0/
At the same time, I believe our world is broken. And I'm not looking for human governments to solve a single thing. They've proved themselves totally incapable of solving our toughest problems.
To understand my perspective better, see:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-gods-kingdom-will-do/
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no2-2020-may-jun/
In hindsight, it might be a cheap acquihire.
It makes for interesting television.
For that reason, it probably won't stop anytime soon.
I feel that we pick the next thought to convey. I don't feel like we actively think about the words we're going to use to get there.
Though we are capable of doing that when we stop to slowly explain an idea.
I feel that llms are the thought to text without the free-flowing thought.
As in, an llm won't just start talking, it doesn't have that always on conscious element.
But this is all philosophical, me trying to explain my own existence.
I've always marveled at how the brain picks the next word without me actively thinking about each word.
It just appears.
For example, there are times when a word I never use and couldn't even give you the explicit definition of pops into my head and it is the right word for that sentence, but I have no active understanding of that word. It's exactly as if my brain knows that the thought I'm trying to convey requires this word from some probability analysis.
It's why I feel we learn so much from reading.
We are learning the words that we will later re-utter and how they relate to each other.
I also agree with most who feel there's still something missing for llms, like the character from wizard of Oz that is talking while saying if he only had a brain...
There is some of that going on with llms.
But it feels like a major piece of what makes our minds work.
Or, at least what makes communication from mind-to-mind work.
It's like computers can now share thoughts with humans though still lacking some form of thought themselves.
But the set of puzzle pieces missing from full-blown human intelligence seems to be a lot smaller today.
There are so many things that a human worker or coder has to do in a day and a lot of those things are non-core.
If someone is trying to be an expert on every minor task that comes across their desk, they were never doing it right.
An error page is a great example.
There is functionality that sets a company apart and then there are things that look the same across all products.
Error pages are not core IP.
At almost any company, I don't want my $200,000-300,000 a year developer mastering the HTML and CSS of an error page.
Pre-AI, homework was often copied and then individuals just crammed for the tests.
AI is not the problem for these students, it's that many students are only in it for the diploma.
If it wasn't AI it would just be copying the assignment from a classmate or previous grad.
And I imagine the students who really want to learn are still learning because they didn't cheat then, and they aren't letting AI do the thinking for them now.
For the exact reasons you state, pre-AI homework was often copied and then individuals just crammed for the tests.
AI is not the problem for these students, it's that many students are only in it for the diploma.
If it wasn't AI it would just be copying the assignment from a classmate or previous grad.
And I imagine the students who really want to learn are still learning because they didn't cheat then, and they aren't letting AI do the thinking for them now.
If some companies want the goods now and other companies need to hold off, how does that work?
Just whoever's shipping the most goods wins?
Was this written in 2030? The war ended in 1945.
Just a minor nit... It was jarring to see a statement of questionable accuracy in the opening paragraph.
We're still in the post Netscape, pre-dotcom-crash bubble.
Real applications are coming.
Isn't nuclear energy, one of the safest forms of energy overall?
But I still can't shake the fear of it.
And that fear across most of the population has hindered nuclear energy despite all its benefits.
It is going to be interesting to watch how regulation unfolds.
How many times has your hearing stuttered in and out?
How many hearts have you had changed out in your lifetime? Eyes? Ears?
Are you on your second or third tongue?
To say that IT systems are more robust than the biological systems is wild.
A healthy human lives on average for sixty plus years with almost every major system in the body being totally beyond repair by medicine.
There is almost no IT system in existence that has gone more than a few years without a crash or shutdown.
When I first read the parent comment, I thought, maybe this is a long-term architecture concern...
But your message reminded me that we've been here before.
I almost forgot about Works.
That was the word processor for those of us without a lot of money in those days.
Wordperfect and Word 5 were still close to tied.
Word 6.0 is where Microsoft finally pulled away.
The 90's were exciting times.
So many epic battles playing out on the covers of PC Magazine and other computing magazines of the day.
Borland Delphi vs Visual Basic
Word vs Wordperfect
Windows vs OS/2
Lotus vs Excel
Explorer vs Netscape
Oracle vs SQL Server
And many non-Microsoft battles.
Microsoft wasn't the clear winner in most battles until the mid-90s.
The current AI wars seem to be somewhat similar.
It was Netscape's IPO that did that.
Microsoft and Intel's stocks were a big deal in the 90's. But they were solid businesses.
To my memory, the idea of getting rich overnight simply by being tied to the Internet started with the Netscape IPO.
Often "totally new product" == bad (or more accurately, "first mover" == bad)
I think there is a misconception that totally new products make the money. But the second (or later) mover is often in a better position [1].
Dropbox was not new. File sharing existed prior. AirBnB was not new. Vrbo existed prior. Ethereum was definitely not the first crypto.
The iPod was not new. MP3 players were popular enough to be found at most electronics stores.
My rule of thumb is I want competitors. I want a product category to have some existing popularity (so I know there is money to be made), but not universal.
I think we're far from battery storage being universal in homes and world-wide.
So, if someone can become the iPod or Dropbox of battery storage, that might be a $100+ billion company.
I don't know if Pila is it. But the idea of a battery mesh, instead of the all-or-nothing powerwall sounds interesting.
I would love to be able to build up my home battery storage 1-kwh at a time instead of financing a giant battery all at once.
I can especially see that having value in middle-income countries.
Edit: Adjusted my 10-kwh statement to 1-kwh to make the example make more sense.
[1]: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the_second_...
But, what do you use for agentic assistants?
Here we are, a couple of years later, truly musing about sectors of the world embracing AI and others not.
That sort of piecemeal adoption was predictable but not that we are here to have this debate this soon!
This is a terrible example.
If supersonic mass travel could be provided safely and cheaply, demand would be bonkers.
If I could get to Tokyo in an hour for $50, I would visit every weekend.
Overall, the article is sound.
But what a terrible example of demand not filling supply.
If I had a terabit per second, indeed I probably wouldn't use it.
But you can not make travel fast enough.
Isn't it because NVIDIA insists on only using the latest nodes from a single company (TSMC) for manufacture?
I don't understand why we can't use older process nodes to boost overall GPU making capacity.
Can't we have tiers of GPU availability some on cutting edge nodes, others built on older Intel and Samsung nodes?
Why is Nvidia not diversifying aggressively to Samsung and Intel no matter the process node.
Can someone explain?
I've heard packaging is also a concern, but can't you get Intel to figure that out with a large enough commitment?
(Also, I know NVIDIA has some capacity on Samsung. But why not go all out, even using Global Foundries?)
Isn't it because we insist on only using the latest nodes from a single company for manufacture?
I don't understand why we can't use older process nodes to boost overall GPU making capacity.
Can't we have tiers of GPU availability?
Why is Nvidia not diversifying aggressively to Samsung and Intel no matter the process node.
Can someone explain?
I've heard packaging is also a concern, but can't you get Intel to figure that out with a large enough commitment?
Whales, buffalo, elephants, and the list goes on. In a balanced world, I feel like we shouldn't have more mass than the total of all these massive creatures.
I wonder in what year human biomass passed wild mammal biomass.
Even if they win the legal case, it means weights can be inferred and improved upon simply by using the output that is also your core value add (e.g. the very output you need to sell to the world).
Their moat is about as strong as KFC's eleven herbs and spices. Maybe less...
Even if they win the legal case, it means weights can be inferred and improved upon simply by using the output that is also your core value add (e.g. the very output you need to sell to the world).
Their moat is about as strong as KFC's eleven herbs and spices. Maybe less...
I'm not going to take a side on whether there is or not.
But, it does sound reminiscent of the reasons used to ban Tik-tok.
On the inference side, why does one need Nvidia GPUs over Intel and AMD GPUs?