swlabr

Are these entry-level developers that are merely half as good as expert human unassisted developers in the room with us right now?

Megacorp LLM death spiral:

1. Megacorp managers at all levels introduce new LLM usage policies.
2. Productivity goes down (see study linked in post)
3. Managers make the excuse that this is due to a transitional period in LLM policies.
4. Policies become mandates. Beatings begin and/or intensify.
5. Repeat from 1.

Great. First, my AI girlfriend drops her tables because I ran out of tokens, and I can't buy more tokens because I can't write code anymore, because Cursor is too expensive. Next, you'll be telling me I can't jork it to LLM hentai! I mean, what are even doing here??? (jk)

I mean, if a lawyer uses LLMs as counsel, that might cause a judge to stay the proceedings to tell that lawyer to get their shit together and be professional. Or if a company slaps AI into their mission statement, that could stay their stock price for a while until investors lose faith or they pivot to the next bubble. In that sense, "AI is here to stay."

a “cant tell you my ideas or you might steal them” guy

This reminds me of A Guy that I knew through an internship at a MegaCorp. After landing a job at said MegaCorp and moving to the MegaCorp Bay locale, former intern Guy hit me up for dinner when he was visiting. With no reason to say no and a plethora of free time, I said, sure.

It turned out that Guy was a total techpilled crank. He was talking like he was giving a TED talk the whole dinner. Some things I remember:

• "billionaires are good people, actually."
• "because of things that I know and have learnt, I know I will become a billionaire"
• Guy was pitching me his "billion-dollar" startup idea of a payments layer for donating to charity. He was convinced that this was an ethical idea. He had no counterpoint when I pointed out that the idea was essentially to skim money off the top of donations.
• Favourite moment of the night was when he said something to the effect of: "I'm going to tell you a truth that you might not be able to handle", followed by him saying something trivial or banal or otherwise forgettable; I remember reacting with indifferent silence and him going silent, literally shaking with anger, then him breaking the silence with "I'm sorry, I just got really angry for a moment there."

I don't know what guy has been up to since, but my money would be on something LLM based.

Can’t find the angle to spin this out into a grown-up buttcoin post, but if I did, the title would be “Horse_ebutts”.

Anyway: recently I’ve been burdened with the knowledge that there’s a bunch of horse racing related crypto companies. They’re all obviously terrible.

• Zed Run: a play to earn (P2E) virtual horse NFT racing game. Defunct as of February, probably due to rug pulling, they are pivoting to “Zed Champions”, which is… pretty much the exact same thing, with likely the same fate.
• EquineChain: a blockchain platform for tracking horse care history, because apparently people don’t trust horse caregivers and need GPUs to remember how much ivermectin and ketamine their show-ponies have mainlined.
• BTX Racing: a blockchain platform for buying stake in horses. Not sure if you get to choose which cut of the horse you own. Also, not sure if when you liquidate your equine tranche you get cash or a bucket of glue.

Also, insert obligatory stablecoin reference here.

Capitalism is a human pyramid made up of idea guys.

Carl Marks, Tha Capital

Why not 18 ramdom cowboys though.

“You’re going to lick boot in 20 years anyway, why not get used to the taste now?”

Abundance just be repackaged free-market libertarian shit. The liberals that are pushing it are participating in the storied liberal tradition of courting reactionaries and fascists, thinking they are immune to the effects of intero-abyssal staring.

not debate club

source? (jk jk jk)

The comments are fun. Here's the pinned comment, authored by the video's author:

I'm not the best at thinking on the fly, so here are two key points I tried to make that got a little lost in the discussion:
1. I think our entire disagreement rests on Eliezer seeing increasingly refined AI conclusively making the jump to actual intelligence, whereas I do not see that. I only see software that mimics many observable characteristics of intelligence and gets better at it the more it's refined.
2. My main point of the stuff about real v. fake + biological v. machine evolution was only to say that just because a process shares some characteristics with another one, other emergent properties aren't necessarily shared also. In many cases, they aren't. This strikes me as the case for human intelligence v. machine learning.

MY CONCLUSION
By the end, I honestly couldn't tell if he was making a faith-based argument that increasingly refined AI will lead to true intelligence, despite being unsubstantiated OR if he did substantiate it and I was just too dumb to connect the dots. Maybe some of you can figure it out!

Here's my favourite:

"Ooh Ross making an interview!"
5 minutes in
"Ooh Ross is making an interview Neil Breen of AI".