spongebobstoes

8 ms·

1.
by spongebobstoes 3d ago
> it will just make a lot of the things we are doing much more expensive. Software engineering is an early victim of that I replied to the author's claim that software engineering is more expensive now because of AI regardless, AI h
2.
by spongebobstoes 3d ago
the author claims that AI makes things more expensive. in my experience, $200/month is a small price for such a productivity increase the author also speculates without reason that tokens are discounted, and subscriptions lose money. I
3.
by spongebobstoes 5d ago
using AI makes an individual more capable and empowered. this views AI as an accessible tool, like AWS or a nail gun individual empowerment threatens institutions
4.
by spongebobstoes 5d ago
with AI, one person can accomplish much more collaboration adds overhead, but expands what's possible. need to think bigger to continue to see the benefits
5.
by spongebobstoes 6d ago
I think this is mathematicians coming to grips with the fact that AI is surpassing them we will all have this moment soon enough, and it will change how we think about intelligence, identity and value
6.
by spongebobstoes 6d ago
thanks for diving in, though I don't find the reasons convincing as I will briefly enumerate ads fund access for poor people. Ant has a different philosophy, not a better one. Altman was supported by >90% of employees. OAI DoW deal
7.
by spongebobstoes 6d ago
same, I'm a paying user in the US
8.
by spongebobstoes 6d ago
what makes the company so terrible?
9.
by spongebobstoes 7d ago
OAI didn't try to claim Buckmaster's work as their own. OAI tried to let Buckmaster present OAI's work. it is nearly the opposite of your accusation
10.
by spongebobstoes 8d ago
it seems like OAI tried to share, but didn't want to share with an Ant employee. a bit childish, but understandable to want to avoid a headline "Anthropic researcher solves Millennium problem" it seems like Buckmaster got one
11.
by spongebobstoes 8d ago
just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not true
12.
by spongebobstoes 8d ago
that is not related to the accusation that they literally stole Buckmaster's work, which seems baseless I don't agree with the oil claim analogy. this is knowledge, freely given to the world. not something hoarded by a corporation
13.
by spongebobstoes 8d ago
what reason do we have to believe that they did this? both things were proved by AI, isn't it logical that they could have very similar approaches? it is common that multiple people essentially simultaneously prove/invent the same
14.
by spongebobstoes 10d ago
we have some pushback against Flock, but technology does not regress there are many people who want to use surveillance to deter and catch criminals surveillance also helps combat certain abuses of power, like cops shooting black people we
15.
by spongebobstoes 11d ago
surveillance technology is not going away. we need to mitigate the downsides what systems could be changed or created to prevent abuse of power?
16.
by spongebobstoes 14d ago
your own post says in detail that the US has export restrictions on those countries. this doesn't seem like an arbitrary ruling by OpenAI it sounds like they are complying with US law
17.
by spongebobstoes 27d ago
what's the point here? a wrong thing happening to Aaron doesn't mean we should make that same thing happen to Meta
18.
by spongebobstoes 27d ago
you have to opt in to private contributions being visible like that
19.
by spongebobstoes 29d ago
this is a type of false equivalency. the comments you read earlier were likely left by different people the whiplash can be jarring, but it's important to remember that the commentariat are many individuals, not a single entity you can
20.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
could we relax the security around electric planes, because they don't carry as much highly explosive material? that could make it much more convenient and appealing as a travel method
21.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
isn't this the fault of the subcontractor for agreeing to the impossible?
22.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
yes, they are. they are hugely concerned that China has loads of power, and the US is incapable of keeping up the biggest limiting factors for AI labs scaling are silicon, then electricity. they are acutely aware of this
23.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
since 2016 ish, big tech has measured infrastructure efficiency in watts, not dollars. that's because they made multiple long term deals for power that came up short they want to build more power of any kind, ideally renewables. but th
24.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
I think your anger would be better placed with the institutional barriers to building clean energy in America that prevent these infrastructure companies from doing the right thing transmission via HVDC is extremely difficult to build due t
25.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
it is not only "that hard", it is impossible 1/ deploying solar takes years to go through multiple layers of environmental review at municipal, state and federal levels 2/ the generator interconnection queue takes 5+ yea
26.
by spongebobstoes 1mo ago
they don't have the same name, the email confusion was between Wang and Chang
27.
by spongebobstoes 2mo ago
the major labs want to advance science. current business use cases are a happy accident
28.
by spongebobstoes 2mo ago
this is not a good measure of current model capability. we need to test agents in harnesses, not models with a single prompt test Codex, not Sol. test Claude code, not Opus
29.
by spongebobstoes 2mo ago
I really enjoyed this. This talk contains a powerful message of optimism, possibility, agency and power that resonates strongly with me. Computers and technology are force multipliers for humanity. As coders, we are lucky to be gifted with
30.
by spongebobstoes 2mo ago
this is pretty nonsense for a small or home server. it isn't that hard to make something essentially completely bulletproof over a small surface area the issues mainly come from sprawling enterprise infrastructure, running thousands of

More ›