Note, there is a way to turn on extended support (updates). I'm getting updates on my w10. And random restarts, argh. Googling it should be enough to find it.
Mostly to be careful. The house was an absolute dream on paper. It was even something you could commute to Dublin from on the train in a pinch.
I eventually gained some biases that the former-me who lived in the lefty "Dublin 2 and https://irishtechcommunity.com/" bubble wouldn't have been particularly quick to espouse. Now that it's been a few years I think I'm a little better at seeing different sides of things politically, at least.
What work remains valuable when implementation becomes cheap? How about moving closer to ownership?
I think that in a product-centric or mission-centric perspective, effective automation is good, because it frees you up to do other important things. E.g., in gardening, time spent weeding, is time not spent surviving slug armageddon.
Businesses like a record of reliability, so devs going solo with AI is going to be a hard sell. I think we will know that AI is actually good enough when these AI providers start absorbing project management companies and hiring contractors to use their product instead of selling subscriptions.
For the same reasons why we eventully pollute and corrupt every system and environment we use. If there is any benefit that can be extracted for some while the costs are borne by many, than this will occur and generate a positive feedback loop that grows over time.
Regulations can and do work, but its never a 'one and done' kind of solution because people find workarounds and loopholes. It requires a unceasing effort to maintain the balance.
Because while consumers value “inefficiency” (high design, wonderful prose, beautiful images, great usability) they don’t want to actually pay for it. Producers have to become extremely efficient without revenue, and are stuck with a choice: Produce at a loss, stop producing, or seek payment from another source (sponsorships, ads).
I was built with itself, and is essentially optimized for apps like itself.
It started off slow and as the system got better, it sped up its own development, basically exponentially.
Sometimes it got a bit weird, where I would be improving the protocol the LLM uses to save edits, but it would assume the changes that it was actively sending were already in place.
That's why we need and have diplomacy. Everyone is aware that violence is the ultimate option if an actor thinks there's an existential threat to deal with.
If the consensus becomes that a 50+TFlops datacenter in the wrong hands is as dangerous as a uranium enrichment plant, we'll likely move towards treaties and coercion.
50+TFlops is nothing, I got that in my MacBook, but besides that, when, a few years/decades from now, whatever arbitrary compute limit we think prevents Armageddon comes down to enthusiast and consumer level, what then? This isn’t Uranium, compute is not a physical resource.
This is the “SGI” regulation issue I never read a reasonable answer to, if one believes this is possible and should be prevented then either that means they want to restrict every computing system sold from here on out to some arbitrary metric (and somehow prevent users from just creating clusters to get around such a compute restriction) or what?
If compute alone directly leads to “SGI” or whatever, then we might as well put paper bags on our heads and lie down in some English pub.
Not to mention, if one really wanted to cause harm, training a current day LLM and using it for Stuxnet-esque attacks is reasonably possible long before any arbitrary compute limit we might introduce now, no machine God needed to cause major harm.
That’s why I prefer advocacy for LLM regs that focus on current day impact. Mental health concerns, training data licensing questions and the like. There I can formulated reasonable regulation that can hold. For “SGI”, I do not know anyone who actually has done that and I have looked hard. That’s why I consider these things more distraction from actually necessary and possible regulation that just draws attention via a flashy doomsday scenario.
Occasionally, I will click on one of the AI Doomsday Youtube videos recommended to me. And far more often then not, these will posit that "SGI" requires only compute and will inevitably cause devastation. Fair enough, I still think we should put a bit more focus on e.g. LLM induced psychosis, the labs rarely compensating those whose training data they used, etc. but if it is their opinion that "SGI" is possible, I can get why they'd ignore such concerns. But at the end, they never state how to regulate or prevent this, they more often then not have a call to action ("If you want to prevent this...") linking to a website where we can actually read about how they think we should deal with this. Inevitably, I click on said site, finding it to for one be an Effective Altruism aligned project and B always just contain some blabla about "aligning AI training with human values", which is absolutely meaningless nonsense, not least after having watched a video in which someone spends 15 minutes espousing that "we could never fully control "SGI"".
Makes all these feel more like industry efforts to stave of necessary regulation and not actually serious, but if one can formulate how to regulate “SGI” that isn't laughable, nonsense or both, I am not opposed, I just don’t think that person exists…
I think we're all past the "bet-money-can-buy" stage. The most expensive models are an order of magnitude more expensive than the middle ground ones, so you need to be selective about what you run where.
And with a bit of careful routing - there isn't a lot stopping you sending the hard stuff to a cloud model and the average stuff to an on prem model.
reply