mmilunic

I mean, yes, but in this case the same company is doing both parts.

How many Fortune 500 companies require you to buy your own Windows laptop as opposed to them providing one?

Also, if your laptop is work provided, your laptop is going to have little to no privacy no matter what.

Interesting paper by Thinking Machines where they solve this issue.

https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...

TLDR: It’s actually more about kernels changing with batch sizes, and you can solve it by making these kernels not depend on batch sizes. It took their inference time from 26s to 42s.

Perhaps this is a form of Gell-Mann Amnesia (but kinda inverted) where everyone views AI as too inaccurate for their own niche, but perfectly fine for every other field that they know comparably little about.

The idea of the social contract impacting perceptions of AI is interesting to me. I hate to use the words “permanent underclass”, but perhaps the main difference is a fear of that permanent underclass actually materializing. In the US, it seems that that would be the logical endpoint of the capitalist system and many people predict AI simply replacing them permanently. Of course, China is not completely communist, but since their social contract is much less individualistic and more collectivist, maybe that makes people see AI as much more likely to uplift society as a whole or at least “trickle down”.

I think this might be a bigger reason as China’s economy for the youth isn’t looking the brightest right now.

> Non-technical middle managers who have not written a line of code in their lives, now feel that the biggest obstacle between them and greatness has lifted.

I find it interesting how this is almost the “democratization” you mentioned that AI provides. While AI “democratizes” certain technical ability, in some ways the democratization of things can actually be bad, in that this “democratization” pushes us towards a system in which people are completely fungible, and so lose their individual bargaining capability. By democratizing this ability to the non-technical middle manager, the junior software engineer ends up losing their unique contribution and hence vote.

I read a while ago about boycotting AI if you can, and I would love to, but this issue makes me wonder if that could even be effective. If the goal is to remove every unique contribution you provide, what can you take away with a boycott?

Unlike a lot of anti-AI writing I have seen which can drift into the territory of reactionist rhetoric, this feels very grounded. As a student entering the job market, I personally am quite conflicted about my usage of AI, due to all the effects you have said. Especially when testing out more recent “agentic” coding tools where they do literally all the work, not only are there the moral qualms but they’re also not enjoyable to use.

However, in the tech bubble I live in to use these tools for as much as possible in order to “make it” in some sense and actually be employable. Like you said it is a game of chicken. Perhaps the best strategy (for me) is to campaign for institutional guardrails on usage while continuing to individually try to be competitive?

Kinda a smart alec response, but how do you know you aren’t going to increment off the end of the array when operating normally? I guess it is twice the danger.

I think in the context of these it’s more of “we’ve discovered a bug” which gives you more information than “there is a bug”. The main difference in information being that the former implies not only there is a bug but that LLMs can find it.

Either way you would still need some check to ensure your digits are digits and not some other type of character. Having zeroed out memory read as a bunch of NUL characters instead of like “00000000” would probably be useful, as “000000” is sometimes a legitimate user input