It is very weird how that happens. I hardly expected starting a marathon training program to drastically increase my day to day energy. But here we are.
"The Pivot-Count from P0 to P5 is a method used to identify a potential trend reversal (and has nothing to do with Gann).
Its rule is simple: Once P5 is reached, the count starts over from P0, just in the opposite direction. As we can see here, P5 is not in yet; we are currently in the process of forming P4."
Do you really think that the university is going to be the bottleneck? I have to imagine that sometime in the next decade, there's going to be some big reorganization to reflect the fact that you can now learn just as well OUTSIDE of a university context. Credentials are going to become less important, standardized testing and examination far more.
These all sound like factors that make hardware a better long-term prospect to build a career around. Basically every single thing you just mentioned makes the field more resistant to automation.
I have to say that I enjoyed this read but the article was quite thin. Basically the dude got invited to a Bezos retreat, he brought his whole family, his kids got sick and his wife broke her wrist, and Bezos didn't react in the way he would have preferred. That's it. I'm not disagreeing with the article's conclusion, but I'm not sure how you get there from that story.
Does anyone have any plans for what to do with all these chips and things once they are obsolete? I can't imagine they are all just going to go to some scrap heap.
Yeah, it's pretty wild, huh? I'm at one of the big tech companies and the strategy that I've fallen into is to basically just mostly coast, save / invest as much as possible, and hope that this gets me to a financial threshold of "permanently comfortable" before the job losses kick in.
As for what happens after that, I'd really prefer not to have to do physical labor or trades. And it doesn't seem like any other white collar occupation is really going to be insulated, other than perhaps medical. So my strategy is to basically wait and see what society looks like after the transition and I guess I'll try and decide on something then?
Eh, I think there are valid counterarguments to that. Buying property under the current ruling system buys you exclusive rights to that property while that ruling system is in power, and you can use that time to make preparations and such that could help you if shit DOES hit the fan. You might not have the government enforcing your property rights but maybe you can enforce them yourself.
Hmm. So you're saying that he's intentionally overhyping the danger of ML models in a cynical play to eliminate open models through regulation or backlash, when in reality there is no danger. But if this is the case why isn't Altman and Demis saying the same?
Yes, absolutely. Is this really so hard to understand? The guy literally founded SpaceX. Of course I'm going to take him seriously. At least a lot more seriously than some no name journalist who proclaims that the founder of SpaceX is dumber than a bag of bricks.
Whatever point this article is trying to make is just completely overshadowed by the dripping vitriol. Musk has a "head full of room temperature butterscotch"? Come on. It's hard to take any of the rest seriously once you read a sentence like that.
Who the hell cares? We're about to invent a certain technology, known as AI. Imagine being able to generate a video of a dog on a skateboard, or an elephant flying to the moon. A "hothouse earth" is a small price to pay - we CAN'T slow down.
I mean yeah, but that's why there are far more research avenues these days than just pure LLMs, for instance world models. The thinking is that if LLMs can achieve near-human performance in the language domain then we must be very close to achieving human performance in the "general" domain - that's the main thesis of the current AI financial bubble (see articles like AI 2027). And if that is the case, you still want as much compute as possible, both to accelerate research and to achieve greater performance on other architectures that benefit from scaling.
Well, I tried to specifically frame it in a neutral way, to outline the thinking that pretty much all the major nations / companies currently have on this topic.
There is a certain logic to it though. If the scaling approaches DO get us to AGI, that's basically going to change everything, forever. And if you assume this is the case, then "our side" has to get there before our geopolitical adversaries do. Because in the long run the expected "hit" from a hostile nation developing AGI and using it to bully "our side" probably really dwarfs the "hit" we take from not developing the infrastructure you mentioned.
I agree with you with the caveat that all the "ease of building" benefits, for me, could potentially be dwarfed by job losses and pay decreases. If SWE really becomes obsolete, or even if the number of roles decrease a lot and/or the pay decreases a lot (or even fails to increase with inflation), I am suddenly in the unenviable position of not being financially secure and being stuck in my 30s with an increasingly useless degree. A life disaster, in other words. In that scenario the unhappiness of worrying about money and retraining far outweighs the happiness I get from being able to build stuff really fast.
Fundamentally this is the only point I really have on the 'anti-AI' side, but it's a really important one.
I've always wondered... if Lidar + Cameras is always making the right decision, you should theoretically be able to take the output of the Lidar + Cameras model and use it as training data for a Camera only model.
The guy's a master of spin, no doubt. I don't know how you start out with the concept of ads in AI chatbots and end with "This time belongs to the builders, not the people who want to control them." What a bunch of generic nonsense... and yet people lap it up like puppy dogs.
I'm for AI the technology. Who doesn't want cool sci-fi future tech? But I'm against AI being co-opted by our dear leaders to end white collar work and lock us all in a permanent underclass.
I have no doubt that someday in the future these world models will revolutionize gaming. However, they are clearly very far off from that point in capability, not to mention the cost. And a lot of these articles I'm seeing are confidently stating very incorrect facts like "this new model will completely change the workflow of game developers and accelerate game development." No it won't.
I don't trade individual stocks but it does seem like an easy case of "buy the dip" here.
Thank you for the explanation. I guess the thing I don't understand is what exactly the problems are that you are seeing. We've all heard the stories of wooden parts in initial production runs of Tesla models, sure. But it does seem like they iron out these kinks over time. Maybe I'm biased because I'm in the bay area, but it seems like every 3rd car you see on the highway is a Tesla, and lots of my coworkers speak very highly of theirs that they own. It just doesn't seem to me like there is actually a quality issue here?
If anything, ending production of SX and giving more focus to 3Y would probably increase the quality of those models, I'd imagine.
If you're pointing to Autopilot / camera-only as the main transgression here, yeah I'll agree that they have definitely overpromised, but it doesn't really seem to me like the lack of a L5 system is actually a deal-breaker for anyone, because from what I hear they are just damn good cars anyway.
I don't really get this take... not when Tesla is by a wide mile the world's most valuable automaker. How does Tesla ending production of the S and X equate to the old auto establishment "stomping over them"?
Honestly, how long do you guys think we have left as SWEs with high pay? Like the SWE job will still exist, but with a much lower technical barrier of entry, it strikes me that the pay is going to decrease a lot. Obviously BigCo codebases are extremely complex, more than Claude Code can handle right now, but I'd say there's definitely a timer running here. The big question for my life personally is whether I can reach certain financial milestones before my earnings potential permanently decreases.
Unfortunately it seems the incentive structures are ultimately set by global competition and the security dilemma. So short of total world disarmament and UBI, fundamentally the incentive will always be to work harder than your opponent to preserve your own security.