They don’t make excuses for power, though.

So, the typical centrist/liberal, then?

Language simply changes over time.

Problem with Starlink is that the satellites need to be replaced every 5 years or so.

Yeah, but my point was that our current economic system can’t deal with, not that we can’t deal with it in general. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power, which they won’t do willingly, even as the walls are closing in. (In fact, when it comes to global warming, the walls are closing in).

So, why are declining birth rates not a problem?

It’s not shrinking yet, the birth rate is declining, and the world population is projected to start declining 2050.

I think I first saw this a decade ago.

Edit: And in that decade, not even a single post about those toilets being installed anywhere. Not one peep.

Maybe. Could also be that humans never invent anything that comes close to a biological brain. Either because we simply aren’t smart enough, or because civilization regresses before we get there. And there’s several trends going on currently which could cause civilization to regress. For example, climate change and declining birth rates (While we could set up an economic system that can deal with a shrinking and aging population, our current one cannot).

So, you admit that it was funny?

I’d ask you to read the Wikipedia disambiguation page on scaling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaling), but you’re likely too scared to consider anything that doesn’t conform to your simplistic worldview.

I said “scaling” not “scale”. “Scaling” refers to how output and expenses of the enterprise behaves as it becomes bigger or smaller. Threeduck seems to think it means “big”. And then immediately refers the holocaust for some reason.

Though, the term is broad, hence why I asked them about how they interpret the term.

Do you know what I mean by “scaling”? Because going by your reply, you don’t.

You’re such an embarrassment.

Current genAI? Never. There’s at least one breakthrough needed to build something capable of actual thinking.

Death Industry sounds like it would be an awesome band name.

Animal agriculture has significantly better utility and scaling than LLMs. So, its not hypocritical to be opposed to the latter but not the former.

He’s also already admitted that they’re out of training data. If you’ve wondered why a lot more websites will run some sort of verification when you connect, it’s because there’s a desperate scramble to get more training data.

It’s safe to assume that any metric they don’t disclose is quite damning to them. Plus, these guys don’t really care about the environmental impact, or what us tree-hugging environmentalists think. I’m assuming the only group they are scared of upsetting right now is investors. The thing is, even if you don’t care about the environment, the problem with LLMs is how poorly they scale.

An important concept when evaluating how something scales is are marginal values, chiefly marginal utility and marginal expenses. Marginal utility is how much utility do you get if you get one more unit of whatever. Marginal expenses is how much it costs to get one more unit. And what the LLMs produce is the probably that a token, T, follows on prefix Q. So P(T|Q) (read: Probably of T, given Q). This is done for all known tokens, and then based on these probabilities, one token is chosen at random. This token is then appended to the prefix, and the process repeats, until the LLM produces a sequence which indicates that it’s done talking.

If we now imagine the best possible LLM, then the calculated value for P(T|Q) would be the actual value. However, it’s worth noting that this already displays a limitation of LLMs. Namely even if we use this ideal LLM, we’re just a few bad dice rolls away from saying something dumb, which then pollutes the context. And the larger we make the LLM, the closer its results get to the actual value. A potential way to measure this precision would be by subtracting P(T|Q) from P_calc(T|Q), and counting the leading zeroes, essentially counting the number of digits we got right. Now, the thing is that each additional digit only provides a tenth of the utility to than the digit before it. While the cost for additional digits goes up exponentially.

So, exponentially decaying marginal utility meets exponentially growing marginal expenses. Which is really bad for companies that try to market LLMs.

“Holiday in Cambodia” is a song by the punk rock band Dead Kennedys.