Something about qwen models hold up really well even at low quants. for most other models anything under q5 is cooked, but on 35B-A3B I can get a lot of things done even at q3_xl. It is definitely better than full precision 9B
This tracks, I have read that this generation is the first one since the 1800s that performs worse academically than the previous ones. Experts blamed screens and anything digital in the classroom.
In hcol locations yes, but in south of spain you can get full time talent for that figure. It's also an entry-level salary in eastern europe, with ukraine and turkey even being somewhat cheaper.
128GB machines can't run anything locally that is even nearly as capable as a frontier model like Claude. We can get an idea from deepseek v4 pro being 1.6T model, requiring approx. 860GB VRAM to run.
Has it ever occured to you, presumably, a white collar worker, to "give back" to others less fortunate than you? With your presumably, well-above earnings, does it ever cross your mind to give a recurring stipend to some other people, even though it could make a real difference to someone?
I personally do have a monthly automatic donation set in the bank, it's not a lot, but I wouldn't say it hasn't occurred to me. I do try to save money for specific things however, if I made more and I didn't save e.g. I for sure would be happy to increase what I give monthly. My goal is to be able to do whatever I want, so for that reason I'm trying to save. Whatever I want would also likely be valuable to society (until AGI), and if I made more thanks to that, I wouldn't have problem sharing more.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't work in the private sector? Working at a hospital for 20 years is enough public service for me, thanks.
Of course, but the comment is not aimed at you, I'm even a little surprised you read it that way.
What I tried to point out, is billionaires and CEOs, are still people, and mindset change regarding universal basic income is likely not going to be top-down. I see people (hoping?) that wealthy people eventually start disbursing money out of the blue, but is that really going to happen realistically?
Perhaps in some societies, like France, where profit sharing is more culturally common.
There is no panic, it's misreporting and bad journalism. 2025 AI budgets were based on 2025 AI capabilities, and let's face it, LLMs only got acceptable in around November 2025. So it's natural usage went up and budgets didn't account for that.
There's absolutely someone in every big company except the biggest tech companies in the world looking at spend these days because of exactly what you said. The models are good now which means people use them a lot more which means money is flying out the door more than ever before (and the impact on the businesses hasn't shown up yet as you might notice in the earnings of any business that isn't a frontier AI company)
The root problem: At every company, there is always more work that could be done, but there is not always more work that would increase profits.
Existing corporate command and control has optimized for people control, because people cost money and performed work. Control their assignments, and you control costs and what's worked on.
Widespread unmetered AI turns this on its head, because suddenly each employee is directing their own work and the AI spend that comes with it.
F.ex. Bob in accounting may think it's a brilliant idea to rebuild Lotus 1-2-3.
That may help Bob, but 10x'ing Bob's spreadsheet output doesn't change the company's profitability, because it wasn't a limiting factor. It was to Bob, but not to the company's revenue generators.
Increasing AI spend without profitability improvements is a symptom that C2 is failing (or was insufficient to begin with).
Seen through a charitable "CEOs know what the fuck they're doing" lens, the preemptive layoffs are about forcing AI efficiency gains in areas CEOs expect them: instead of allowing those departments' remaining employees to build their own apps, they're forced to deploy AI to cover for their missing 3 team members.
Unfortunately, the layoffs were executed before there were solid results about which departments could benefit from AI use (and without a plan for continuity of institutional knowledge), so... we'll see.
I mean, the layoffs we are going through right now are patently due to the high cost of AI buildouts and transitions. Meta is taking on significant debt for the first time in a long time to continue their build out plans as AI components have spiked in price.
I get what you're saying about how every employee becomes a liability when they are let loose with an AI, and totally agree. But I think the layoffs have a much more financial root because they are so widespread across so many companies and even industries (not just tech)
My point about layoffs is that with widespread AI adoption and without department-targeted layoffs, a company risks their AI spend disappearing into the void.
Layoffs + access to AI forces most of that AI use to make up for the layoffs.
Which is a pretty shitty way to burn your employees out... but it has a method.
(Also, I'd say AI infra companies vs everyone else are apples to oranges. This point would be more applicable to a non-AI infra company that's paying for AI use rather than AI infra capital)
An alternative strategy would be to stack insane amounts of cash while every other competitor is blowing theirs, putting you in an incredible position to deploy capital whenever this bubble pops. This seems so much more obvious, to me at least. I think AI is the future but it’s far more likely than not that the current phase of the market is a bubble and unsustainable. What even has Meta produced with all this AI spend? I’m not even sure what race they’re in. It just seems like a big AGI or nothing gamble. Personally I would be watching all my competitors make that bet and laughing all the way to the bank as my financial position constantly improved relatively. A lot of your competitors are basically practising self harm right in front of you and you’re joining in? Maybe I’m the idiot who is missing something, but I just don’t get it.
That's a big risk for any market with first mover advantage / network effects.
How'd Microsoft's mobile efforts go?
Sometimes the lead quickly becomes insurmountable, so if you're sitting on a cash flow machine it's not a terrible idea to at least keep pace with new markets.
What is the risk for Meta? They will continue to be a social media company that prints money regardless. I'm arguing that they NEVER need to join the AI market, not try and jump in late.
I'd argue it's not about selling everything. Instead, avoid buying things by default and trying to keep up with the Joneses. You don't need to move to the wilderness, you just need to choose to escape consumerism.
For example:
- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?
- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?
- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?
Trying to be gentle here but this is pretty out of touch.
- I have bought a new car exactly once in my life, and likely never will again. This is the same as pretty much every other person I know personally. The last vehicle I bought had over 300k miles on it.
- Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
- Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
> Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
Look around where your posting and remember that Apple has an upgrade program as well as most US cell carriers that will push you to upgrade your phone. Let a lone the thousands of Apple product release threads where people brag about buying the latest and greatest device.
> Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
Now I’m confused, are Target brands considered fancy?
I just grabbed random things I've seen from behavior in other people. If you don't fall victim to those consumerist traps, then that's legitimately great.
Yes, I absolutely know folks who buy new phones every year, and who lease new cars and upgrade every 3 years. Most of whom really can't really afford to do these things but do it anyway and end up in increasing debt.
And sure, buy clothes from Walmart if you have a Walmart location near you. I just picked the nearest big-box store to me, for some reason Walmart doesn't have much of a presence out where I am.
(The takeaway I got from the game is "don't try to buy the hat, it's a trap". I'm curious what your takeaway was?)
I think I just took issue with what seemed like trite advice about what it takes to win at life or whatever. Your other comment on the thread cleared it up well enough:
> I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage.
and I agree with that completely. I can definitely get behind not buying the hat (or buying a cheaper hat) but at some point it's not a hat, it's a vehicle that you need to get to work or a home repair or medical bill or something and your options become a) buy the cheap thing (and buy it again in six months when it breaks and is now more expensive) or b) walk away and suffer the consequences. I've done both, and neither really feels like winning.
- Do you really need to keep your children in school or contribute to their higher education, when you can just let them roam free on the streets or better yet, work down at the factory and earn their keep?
- Do you really need children at all, when an AI digital pet might satisfy that need much more economically?
- Do you really need expensive dental crown implants or dentures, when you can whittle yourself some chompers out of beechwood and call it a shuccshesh?
- Do you really need to own a home in a neighbourhood that is safe and close enough to your place of employment, when you can rent in a rough area of town and spend hours commuting on public transport?
> 77 percent of low-income households can cover an unexpected $400 expense, though many must cover it with disposable income or short-term credit... 43 percent of low-income households unable to weather small expense shocks might be able to pay them with access to additional credit.
I'm not sure if credit is the ideal solution, nor if additional credit would be beneficial.
Generally, lots of debt, but they still do it. I know people who go into debt for “fun” purchases, then complain that their credit card bills are so high they can’t afford anything
I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage. There are absolutely people who don't make enough to survive - and that's a bigger problem of course.
reply