The underlying tautologies always existed. Making them accessible to us as truth and usable for one or more functions is what's invented by people (and potentially by AI) via insightful proofs and narratives.
I think the nuance they are pointing towards is that we cannot with any certainty say one way or another, as this is an unsolved problem in mathematics, and may possibly remain unsolved forever.
Your opinion is a possibility but it is not grounded by any proof, as such it is nothing more than an assumption. I think the more intellectually healthy approach is to list out the possibilities and figure out what they entail, rather than to throw all your eggs in one basket blindly, which amounts to a leap of faith or a retreat to commitment.
But that's just my two cents, take it or leave it.
I absolutely do not understand what are you talking about.
The question whether the tautologies exists regardless of whether we know about them or not is absolutely not a problem that is studied by mathematics and can be proven by mathematics.
Correct, these questions lie outside the internal practice of mathematics. If you want to see where that computational mindset breaks down, read Carnap's "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology" regarding internal versus external frameworks (or have an LLM summarize it...), or look into Brouwer's Intuitionism, or better yet into Lawvere and Topos theory, where the "underlying tautologies" literally change depending on the categorical environment you construct (but this may take some time to wrap your mind around so don't expect to understand much right away). Or, given the thread topic, you can just prompt an LLM to interactively walk you through how classical logic fails in a constructivist topos, or if you have interests outside of applied math or mathematics itself, you can ask it about foundational questions in science and mathematics, which unlike the prevailing opinion in many tech circles, aren't resolved.
When they surpass us, they will surpass us hard, in a way that is nearly impossible for us to compete with them.
Training and serving LLM's is massively parallel. Your bottleneck is either in energy or chips. China will catch up on chips fully decades before we catch up on energy. Arguably, this is already happening: here in the USA, we have lots of chips, but we are seeing our electricity bills skyrocket as more datacenters come online. We are powering those datacenters with natural gas turbines, not solar, wind and nuclear. Right now, to purchase one of those, you are on a 5-year waitlist. There's your timeline!
China is invested, from a regulatory, cultural, workforce, strategic, and technological standpoint, in an energy abundant future. We are not invested -- and in fact, actively sabotaging ourselves -- on all of those fronts.
Once they acquire chips, we lose, basically permanently. Look at what Huawei is doing recently and what is on their roadmap to understand how fast this catching-up is taking place. I'm sure that David Sacks would say that our innovation motor is pulling their copycat caboose along, as our monopolist tech companies steam ahead towards the frontier. I am not so sure. They are already ahead of us in many technologies. Speaking of technologies, they're building natural gas turbines in house, starting in 2025.
I agree that in the long run, China will likely surpass us in AI capacity. Our refusal to build out renewable capacity is a ridiculous self own in the long run.
This reads like someone who's worldview comes from social media comment sections. China is still an emerging economy, don't confuse emergence with expansion.
There are plenty of serious businesses doing serious things, complex things, that use microsoft teams for chat. My work uses it, it kinda sucks, but honestly there's way more things to bikeshed than chat apps. You can send text messages and make video calls and do presentations in microsoft teams.
You can't really compare API prices though. The cards that they are running frontier models on in the datacenter can service hundreds of simultaneous requests and are at nearly 100% utilization. This thing would sit on your desk and be used to service a single user for a couple hours per day.
It is the locally ran models that get me excited. They have an immutable user agreement and a focus on privacy.
Subscription / on-demand polices are a moving target, along with cost.
I foresee the ML market replicating the video streaming services market. Join us at a low rate and no advertisements. Six months latter, advertisements for everyone, unless you pay more $$. Now $$ will still show you ads. We are raising the rate to $$$ with adds ...
It’s about Elon’s control over these companies. Creating a valuable company with durable revenue that produces products that the market actually wants, with stable governance by a board representing the shareholders of the company? Bah! What am I, a sucker?
He wants control, so that he can use investor’s cash to do epic stuff like humanoid robots, cyber trucks, an AI that tells you that apartheid was actually cool, rocket cars, real life brain controlled robot bacon chungus, etc.
“Other shareholder meetings are snoozefests but ours are bangers. Look at this. This is sick.”
Elon’s pay package: he gets 400 million Tesla shares if he raises the market cap of tesla(xspacextwitterxAIx) to $8.5 trillion (nominal). He spent a cool 250 mil on making friends with the republicans, so as to ensure that his incoming epic awesome merger is not blocked.
A merger, plus the amount of inflation this government has already produced over the next decade, will probably see X co hitting Elon’s salary goals.
I love the dissipative structure framing. It's the only logical explanation for all of this.
Datacenters in space are visionary -- they are maximally energy rate dense and they expand the area of energy absorption. Might be 100 years too early but that is where we are headed, after we turn all of the available biosphere of earth into computronium, that is.
The only superior technology left would be von Neumann probes.
When you don't have any insulin, your body goes into a state of diabetic keto-acidosis (DKA). While in this state, sugar builds up in your blood, but does not enter your cells. Your liver dumps glucose into the bloodstream which causes dehydration, as the kidneys work overtime to clean the blood. The body eventually uses an alternate metabolic pathway to produce energy which dumps byproducts into the blood which cause it to turn acidic among other things.
Speaking from experience, severe DKA is extremely uncomfortable. The problem is in your blood, so you feel a constant and extreme discomfort everywhere in the body, there's no body part that you can focus on where it isn't happening. You become extremely tired and lethargic and also irritable. You get angry and panicked and cognition slows down so you don't feel like yourself. You are very hungry and very thirsty but nothing you eat or drink alleviates the sensation. You also feel as though you cannot breathe enough to sate your body, so your breathing becomes faster and shallower.
It's difficult for me to imagine anything worse than dying of DKA. Maybe being lit on fire? That's short though, a death by DKA happens over hours or days. The cruelty here is spectacular.
Insulin is on the WHO essential medication list. The type of insulin that could alleviate these symptoms is cheap and widely available. There is absolutely no excuse here. Every doctor and nurse knows how to treat this and stop this kind of suffering.
Even setting aside the very real risk of life-ending ketoacidosis, high enough blood sugar is pure suffering in itself.
Many aspects to it. The nuances are horrific; For instance. the amygdala is wired with blood glucose sensing capability and processes blood sugar alterations as foundational threat markers. Directly.
It is known that elevated blood sugar nukes sensory nerves and capillaries.
This is torture. Literal. physical torture.
(Source: A loved one just barely escaped death due to a badly missed T1D diagnosis. It's torture.)
reply