Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ijidak's commentslogin

Intelligence is now data in the form of weights.

And once it leaks, it's permanently in the wild.

Interesting times.


"intelligence"

K


Don't worry. They're just leaving the door open for OpenAI and other model makers.

They'll relax these safeguards once competition increases.


I think of this episode as well. I can't believe, in my lifetime, we've reached the point where we can have this debate.

The current debate also makes me realize that, like that episode "Measure of a Man", even if humans do create sentient machines, we can now see that this debate will continue to rage.

A part of me hopes we never create sentience, because we will mistreat it just as we mistreat each other.


That's actually a powerful way of stating it.

If I did all of these calculations by hand, would it be conscious...

That's a powerful argument I haven't seen stated quite that way before..

I do think it's hard to know when consciousness exists, because we can't really prove it for our neighbor. We just intuitively know that it would be crazy, even immoral, to assume otherwise.

But, It's likely easier to dismiss consciousness, once we understand the mechanism, than it is to prove it.


> That's a powerful argument I haven't seen stated quite that way before..

It's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room – a classic in the philosophy of consciousness and AI.


If you manually fired the neurons in a brain by measuring the ion concentrations at its subsides, would it be consciousness?

Oops, auto correct: subsides = synapses

It's was a genuine question though. I'm not saying LLM use neurons, are like neurons, or are meant to be like neurons. I'm saying if you can do the math, for a substrate, that doesn't mean much. The simple math that runs it isn't the secret sauce.


Markets value future cash flows, not today's cash flows.

By the time you see the applications, the market will have moved on to value the next set of future cash flows.

If the market only valued the obvious, investors would jump in to buy the price up, until it met the average expectations.

The market might be wrong, but the question is not: "Have you yet to see?", but rather, "What do you see in the next three to five years?"

Otherwise, how could investors ever invest in a startup?

Startups never have revenues to justify their initial valuations.

It's a bet on the future.

Investors are future looking.

Consumers are present looking.

We didn't see LLM harnesses coming even two years ago. Now they generate billions per month.

Investors can't wait until reality materializes to make their estimations of the future.

That's why investing is hard.

You have to try to predict the future.


> Markets value future cash flows, not today's cash flows.

Sir, this is a casino/Keynesian Beauty Contest.

Markets value what the market participants think the other participants will value. On occasion, this intersects with reality.


I'd like to learn more about how they've been sabotaged. What happened?


Google US semiconductor sanctions on China. Basically US (and allies pressed by US) aren't allowed to export their most cutting edge semiconductor tools and materials to China, so China can only make chips using older-gen tools on older process nodes than western-aligned competitors.

The other part of the sabotage is that western companies then have restrictions on what chips they're allowed to buy from China. IDK if RAM chips are also on that list.


> IDK if RAM chips are also on that list.

Apple cancelled their deal with YMTC (Chinese RAM company) after the US sanctioned the latter. I don't know whether that is directly because of the sanctions, or indirectly (e.g. if Apple thought sanctions would hamper YMTC's ability to supply the goods), but they have had the same effect.

https://www.lightreading.com/business-management/chinese-chi...

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/appl...


Is any of that relevant to RAM? Half the DRAM is non-EUV and pretty much all DRAM has been stuck on 10nm for the last decade


That isn't "sabotage". Those are export restrictions.

China also runs adverse competitive industrial policies (e.g., industrial spying, flooding markets). Not making value judgment here.

You have quite the post history BTW.


I dont know if trade sanctions counts as "sabotage" but point taken.


Well it kinda counts as self-sabotage now, at least in effect. We shot ourselves in the foot so China couldn't compete as easily.


> It's worth reflecting on why it's so hard to convince hold outs to discover how AI might help them

I have. My conclusion is... humans are deeply irrational when it comes to rapid change.

Egg or olive oil prices spike, humans out an entire government.

The rate of immigration spikes, humans throw them into camps and break useful treaties.

Most of the resistance I've observed amongst engineers is resistance to change generally.

And then digging in when challenged.


> Most of the resistance I've observed amongst engineers is resistance to change generally.

Most engineers I've known are enthusiastic when given the opportunity to play around with a new toy. What they don't like is anything being forced on them. There's nothing irrational about that. They've often invested a lot of time into optimizing their workflows.

I've also found that if something actually makes their work easier, you will never have to twist their arm to make them use it. They'll apply it everywhere it helps. They'll even try using it in places and in ways it was never intended for. If they're digging in, you likely haven't made a very compelling case for your changes.


Yeah. Nobody mandated Jetbrains products, almost every developer I know decided for themselves. Actually, it was the opposite: I remember asking a company I once worked for to buy me a license. Took 6 months for them to finally agree. Now my monthly allotment of tokens is way bigger than the price of that license, and it was given freely.


Yep, if a toy was that good, then everyone would be begging their managers to use it, not the other way around.

Nobody ever had to force me to use keyword coloring, code formatters, source control, or a bug tracker.


  > What they don't like is anything being forced on them
raises hand (n=1), i'm fine to use it when i need it, but the derangement by management about it is a total put-off and unnecessary (and in the end counter-productive)


Exactly this

>Here's a new editor we made

Cool, looks interesting, I'd love to use it more

>We're forcing you to use it

I hate it


> resistance to change generally

Nah, software engineers were always butterflies fluttering from one language or framework to the Next Hot Thing. Change was part of the job, if you didn't keep up you fell behind and atrophied.

Resistance to AI is, I think, more because it is seen as an existential threat, or because it's something whose ultimate long-term outcome is still undefined. It's going to be either a benefit or a hazard, and we don't yet know whether we'll need Bladerunners to rein it in.


Resistance to AI is because it doesn't work. It has nothing to do with job security. It's a tech with nothing but hype, no substance at all.


I think I can offer an alternate explanation and it jives with your first point.

When I use AI to completely write code for me (not using it as a powerful auto complete), it's not fun. I don't learn anything. It takes everything I love about software development and makes it just like any other job.

I'm also never happy with the result and, when I go back to make it work the way I want it to, I have to learn a new code base that isn't built the way I would have. If that happens to a project I'm working on as a hobby, I find it incredibly unmotivating.

It turns my intellectual pursuit into an assembly line and I hate that.


I'd add Email to the list.

Email is right there waiting for disruption.


Google wave rides again!

I'd say the thing with email that most improvements would need improved standards?

That said, as with the emacs user example, the ability to automatically process all your email in madly custom ways can now be opened to the masses.


Can you elaborate?


What changes are you seeing? When I look at these images, it shows me what sea surface temperatures are today, but I don't have context as to how it's changed.

I would love someone to stitch years of these images together in a video to help me get better context.


stich them together as an "endless" scroll that can be played, l8ke you say as a video or looked at with all the same days on one screen, which would be the tool I would use to show someone what I have watched for years. observations: there appears to be more heat in the system. there appears to be more mixing. right now the labrador current has been stronger, and reaching further south than I have ever taken note of and the gulf stream is struggling to push past it the current that transports heat around the southern tip of africa is and has been, very strong for the last 6 months. where the SST and the sea ice extent converge, is another way of looking at the same data, and there is more here

https://climatereanalyzer.org/


Yeah I think it was the word "fundamental" he took issue with.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: