• Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’m guessing the lost funds are bleeding out to energy concerns. Correct? Asides from brief construction contracts for data centers, I’m unsure how one makes such large sums of money disappear.

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Goddamm… This could easily have housed every man, woman, and child in this country. But no, no free housing while we squander wealth with our stupid ideas.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’m doing my part by constantly asking chatgpt questions without ever logging in or paying them money. Eventually they’ll all go belly up and maybe we can ditch this shit.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        21 hours ago

        2 only works if regulatory capture in place to prevent cheaper competition from open models.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 hours ago

          That’s why they keep trying to play the “AI is so dangerous” narrative and why you keep hearing about “rogue AI agents” which in reality someone had to instruct to break the law, and they probably used some of their no-guardrails internal-use models (so Claude Mythos rather than Fable).

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Claude Mythos and Fable are the exact same model, the branding only reflects which one has more restrictive classifiers in front of it during deployment. But the weights are identical.

  • joeschmoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Idk man, to me, it feels like we are further from AGI than fusion reactors actually being hooked up to the grid, considering LLMs are still just glorified autocorrects, needing a ton of prompt injections from their providers. And yet, the AI companies make it seem like it’s right around the corner (obviously, because $$$), whereas to me it feels like we are still at least 50 years away. Maybe AGI will be the next fusion generator chase.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Ironically there was notable news in the fusion reactor space this week as Gemini 4, building on the work of Matt Landreman and GPT-6 Astra a little while ago, expanded counterexamples to Grad’s conjecture which had claimed exact solutions for controlling a key aspect of fusion were impossible.

      So fusion may actually be more around the corner thanks to the advances of capabilities of AI which helped prove that the fusion problems aren’t as hard as they were thought to be for decades.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 hours ago

        And if you actually believe that, I have an amazing business proposition to you. So, there is a bridge in NY, and I can sell it to you for very little money…

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Building on other people’s work to provide examples for something is actually one of the things an LLM can be good for.

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Evidently, the only thing it’s good for is providing endless dribble for snake oil salesmen to scam people with. There is an endless barrage of “our latest and greatest magic just solved a problem” and when the dust settles it’s always some combination of exaggeration, lies, misunderstanding, and stolen work.
            Even from my very limited understanding of high level fusion related math, I can bet it’s the same case here. At best they’re not lying and they provided a proof for some old math theorem. What I know is that fusion isn’t “one proven math problem away”, and I bet even if they’re not lying it will not help that much if at all.

    • joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They did manage to do something different, though. I thought at one point that proof assistants should offer to automatically upload your proofs to a central repository so everyone can benefit from them. But such a system would require many to opt in for it to be useful.

      What AI does best is giving you existing solutions. It even adapts them if they don’t quite fit. Because many people now discuss their ideas with AI, ideas may spread the same way as well when the conversations are used as training data.

      So no, definitely not AGI but valuable. Though as typical of explosively growing startups the value does not come from the technology but from activity bordering on criminal that lawmakers can’t keep up with.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Because many people now discuss their ideas with AI, ideas may spread the same way as well when the conversations are used as training data.

        As a training data it’s possible less then useful, unsupervised data like that is actively harmful. As a central repository of everyone’s private conversations it can be in a way useful, but I can’t understand how anyone could be OK with a private company reselling your most private data.

    • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      20 hours ago

      AGI has been achieved more or less because it just means self sufficient at completing tasks. An LLM is just a component these days because they are Vision-Audio-Language-Models with multi frequency ‘thought’ loops. The next letter is A for action where they just have high frequency outputs for direct computer and robot use.

      Just because it is bad AGI doesn’t mean it is not AGI right

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        See the problem is that people expect AGI to learn on its own. LLMs sorta do with big enough context and writing memories, but… They also don’t. They don’t get better at reasoning or anything, they only get better at solving the tasks they’ve written notes on. Which are themselves often pretty bad notes.

        • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          They do learn they use search tools and create long term memories. Mechanically that is just tool use it isn’t magic. Do you need these things as emergent properties for them to be real? That would be cool but I don’t think it takes away what is possible now.

  • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    No wonder they’re panicking so hard over open weight Chinese models

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I firmly believe OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., will all eventually collapse under their own weight, meanwhile open weight distillations of their models will become the de facto standard for AI usage. There’s just no way they can ever make up all the money they’ve burned in R&D, especially when distillations are right behind them.

        • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          What happens to Nvidia when the AI bubble pops though? They will lose so much revenue. Now they should be perfectly sustainable still given that they can sell GPUs to the same customers they used to. But will shareholders like that?

      • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        90% of Anthropic money is enterprise API use which is far less subsidised than their subscriptions being 10% of their income. OpenAI on the otherhand relies on the subs.

        There is still going to be a big bubble bursting. It’ll be interesting to see how each company handles it.

        • cardfire@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Check out what portion of Anthropic revenues turned out to be processing distillation for others, namely Chinese market players.

          A huge portion of their revenue basically came from their competitors using their horsepower against them to build the next, better mouse trap