AIkonoklazt

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/jim-keller-responds-to-sam-altmans-plan-to-raise-dollar7-billion-to-make-ai-chips

Quote

Nvidia's Jensen Huang said that the architectural innovation of AI processors is more important than the quantity of these processors. Now, Jim Keller, a legendary CPU developer who now works at Tenstorrent developing AI and HPC processors, essentially claims the same thing.

"I can do it for less than $1 trillion," Keller wrote in a quote tweet in response to Altman's tweet that says "f* it why not 8" in an apparent reference to raising the fundraising amount to 8 trillion.

They are being very conservative, but more on that in a moment.

I had presented many figures of the current silicon EDA and manufacturing in another thread, feel free to look them up there. There are also some in the above article itself. None of them are anywhere near even $1T, much less then $7T.

There isn't a viable route to claiming ignorance on any sort of invisible plan, because what I presented was the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM numbers.

Why?

Because the implementation of new technologies (software/hardware/design/manufacturing) bring cost REDUCTION, not INCREASE.

If you want to be somewhat technical about this on just one vector alone, you can look at something like Moore's Law, from one of Intel's founders:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/resources/moores-law.html#gs.6gfswq

Quote

Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit will double every two years with minimal rise in cost. Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted a doubling of transistors every year for the next 10 years in his original paper published in 1965. Ten years later, in 1975, Moore revised this to doubling every two years. This extrapolation based on an emerging trend has been a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry for close to 60 years.

What started as an empirical observation became a motivating objective, a target for Intel and its competitors to deliver against time and again. Moore’s Law is not a scientific law (it’s not a natural phenomenon). Moore himself admitted he didn’t much care for the designation, which was not part of the original language in his paper. Rather, Moore’s Law is a projection for the future that relies on innovation and technological advancement for its continued truth.

What does that all mean?

The number of devices-on-chip increases at an exponential rate, combined with minimal rise in cost, produces much lower cost per unit of computing performance.

Let's compare a current example:

This was my first computer I owned when I was a kid, an IBM PC 4.77MHz powered by an Intel 8088. It had 256k of RAM, which made it an advanced model with its memory banks maxed out. My father paid about $3000 for it, and I remember taking off the cover to marvel at all the chips on the motherboard. The wh

ole thing was heavy as HECK, and the keyboard itself weighed almost as much as an actual typewriter. It displayed one color.

This is the Raspberry Pi 400. The actual motherboard is much smaller than the keyboard footprint. It's powered by a Broadcom BCM2711 quad-core Cortex-A72(ARM v8) 64-bit SoC at 1.8GHz, with 2 HDMI ports capable of 4K resolution full color

The price? $77

"But what about R&D?" Sure, what about it? Look up a pure development house like Nvidia or AMD. They're not as big as Samsung, of which I've already given the numbers..........

My personal number? Actually less than $300B. I'm not making that up, I'm simply going by the numbers I've already listed- Go look at them again. If that's not enough, look at Microsoft's number and add it to Amazon's. It's not as if the current AI capacity of the world right now is running on NOTHING........

,,,Because you don't yield to evidence, and on top of that have the gall to ironically keep that "bad faith" accusation going.

You're even worse than the average sophist I run into online. Time to ask yourself why you even have this place up.

All of the above hasn't even touched the point of contention that opened the entire topical can of worms: The assumption that generative AI "take inspiration" from previous works the same way humans do (yikes). No wonder nobody cares how artists/writers (even actors, which was what the SAG strike was about, also see the ongoing New York Times versus OpenAI lawsuit, and the new Nvidia lawsuit as well) are exploited or could stand to be ripped off. I have my own personal experiences with Stable Diffusion to lean on for that. More on it later...

The past couple of weeks I've been in a series of debates with a depressingly large number of people who all hold one misconception in common:

"The human brain works just like (machine) neural networks."

I don't know where the heck they got that idea from. Is it from Hinton? I suspect not, but more on that later.

It can't be just from the word "neural," right? Because there's nothing "neural" about neural networks.

Even on the most basic level, such a gross correlation couldn't be established:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/why-your-brain-is-not-a-computer-neuroscience-neural-networks-consciousness

Quote

"The unstated implication in most descriptions of neural coding is that the activity of neural networks is presented to an ideal observer or reader within the brain, often described as “downstream structures” that have access to the optimal way to decode the signals. But the ways in which such structures actually process those signals is unknown, and is rarely explicitly hypothesised, even in simple models of neural network function."

Looking at the infamous panda adversarial example, NNs evidently don't deal with specific concepts. Here, A signal from an image translating to mathematical space attached to the text label "panda" combined with another signal->space of an image that's invisible to the naked eye produces an image with a mathematical space that's identified to be corresponding to the text label "gibbon" with an even higher degree of match:

That's not "meaning," that's not anything being referred to; That's just correspondence.

People keep saying "oh humans make the same mistakes too!".... No... The correspondences are not mistakes. That's the way the NN algorithm is designed from the start to behave. If you have those same inputs, that's what you get as the output. Human reactions are not algorithmic outputs.

Human behavior isn't computational (and thus non-algorithmic). Goedelian arguments themselves are used to demonstrate similar assertions as mine:
====== (see section 7 of Bishop's paper)https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full

Quote

The Oxford philosopher John Lucas primarily used Gödel's theorem to argue that an automaton cannot replicate the behavior of a human mathematician (Lucas, 1961, 1968), as there would be some mathematical formula which it could not prove, but which the human mathematician could both see, and show, to be true; essentially refuting computationalism. Subsequently, Lucas' argument was critiqued (Benacerraf, 1967), before being further developed, and popularized, in a series of books and articles by Penrose (1989, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002), and gaining wider renown as “The Penrose–Lucas argument.”

The fly brain neural probing experiment I mentioned in my opening article lends support that at least fly brains aren't algorithmic. I don't think there's good reason to believe that the human brain is going to categorically deviate.

Now, on to the subject of Hinton. I think I'd be giving people too much credit if I pegged their thinking to Hinton (as if they all follow him or something), but even if so, Marcus had shown Hinton's POV to be just flat out wrong so many times already I wonder why people never consider changing their minds even once https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/further-trouble-in-hinton-city

Even directly looking at a Hinton lecture I could spot trouble without even going very far into one. While I acknowledge Hinton for his past achievements, he is completely guilty of the behavior of "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Apparently he thinks EVERYTHING is backprop when it comes to the brain. This isn't as cut and dry as he makes it at all, as my previous quote regarding supposed "neural coding" showed. Marcus says Hinton's understanding on the matter is SHALLOW, and I agree.

In the video lecture below, Hinton completely hand-waved the part about how numbers are supposed to capture syntax and meaning. Uh, it DOESN'T, as the above "Panda" example shows. If people arse to watch the rest and can show how he rescued himself from that blunder, please go right ahead...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHCeAotHZa4

(..................and the behavior of the audience itself is laughable. They laughed at the Turing Test "joke"......so I guess behaviorism is a good criteria? That's their attitude, correct? "Seriously these people are not-so-updated if they think that way; Maybe they're just laughing to be polite?" was my reaction)

On 2/18/2024 at 10:56 AM, swansont said:

Assuming all of the pitch is for making fabs, which nobody actually knows. This is all speculation. That’s all this is, since nobody has presented any facts about the proposal other than the dollar amount.

Fabs use a lot of energy, so you need to install a lot of power generation capability. Processing also uses water, which means installing infrastructure for that. You can build your own cities for workers, so it’s possible you’d be building that, too. We don’t know how comprehensive it was.

The basic knee-jerk analysis, that $7T for chip plants is preposterous, should lead to at least the possibility that there’s more to the proposal. The idea that you can only come to this one conclusion is idiotic, and just tiresome manufactured outrage. An exercise in bad-faith discussion.

 

I'm not the one arguing in bad faith.
I'm the one who presented all the numbers on other engineering projects as well as silicon fabs. Where are your supporting arguments, except using the word "lots" a couple of times?

Next thing I know you're going to say people like Jim Keller is making bad faith arguments. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/jim-keller-responds-to-sam-altmans-plan-to-raise-dollar7-billion-to-make-ai-chips

I have solid numbers to back myself up. You blow a lot of smoke. Are you sure you are setting the highest possible example for this forum?

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I see where you are coming from. In your mind the numbers won't compute. That's how I'm feeling about Trump and his ability to find the money he is increasingly liable for, as an example. At the end of the day, the prevailing resource availability sets the limits at what can be realized.

AFAIK nobody has done the math on the ecological disaster that $7T would bring about, but there is some noise being made about it starting with Hugging Face's climate lead:

https://venturebeat.com/ai/sam-altman-wants-up-to-7-trillion-for-ai-chips-the-natural-resources-required-would-be-mind-boggling/

Quote

what is not in doubt is the environmental impact of such a massive effort, according to Sasha Luccioni, climate lead and researcher at Hugging Face.

 

“If it does work out, the amount of natural resources that will be required is just mind-boggling,” she told VentureBeat. “Even if the energy is renewable (which it isn’t guaranteed to be), the quantity of water and rare earth minerals required is astronomical.”

For comparison, in September 2023 Fortune reported that AI tools fueled a 34% spike in Microsoft’s water consumption; Meta’s Llama 2 model reportedly guzzled twice as much water as Llama 1; and a 2023 study found that OpenAI’s GPT-3 training consumed 700,000 liters of water.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where’s your evidence of what he ‘s actually proposing? Not the news summaries. The actual proposal details.

IOW, how do you know he’s not proposing 500 fabs, and power plants and other infrastructure to run them?

You haven’t shown fraud. Incredulity isn’t evidence, no matter how much you want it to be.

Because TSMC has 12 fabs that are processor fabs, Samsung about 5, and Intel has 17.

That's what... 34. Let's round that up to 50 or something. Still not even a tenth.

Look inside your own computer. What processors are there? If you have an AMD rig, everything's TSMC. Nvidia cards are either TSMC or Samsung. Intel stuff are Intel and some TSMC. Same with anything that goes on server racks.

10x the capacity of the entire world just for AI workload. Uh, no...... There are reasons why not, first I'd like to mention that existing infrastructure already handle AI, that's the Amazon guys with the servers they rent out, but OpenAI is probably going go with Microsoft's own Azure infrastructure first (.......and all the Bing/"MS Copilot" stuff already runs there......)

No. Not incredulity. It's just how much it's not gonna take.

On 2/13/2024 at 2:04 AM, swansont said:

 

You are making an argument from incredulity.

You’re also suggesting that the potential investors can’t do their own due diligence. Can’t they just say “no thanks”?

 

I'm arguing from evidence. Each fab is $20B. Samsung itself is about $300B.

"Someone is trying to commit fraud, but that's okay because people will see through it" doesn't make a defense, sorry.

On 2/13/2024 at 8:32 AM, iNow said:

Please assume I'm not following your rant... logic.

How is this equivalent to him "admitting it is not going to help?" Can you please elaborate?

I'm not following yours.

Which part of this following quote of his from the article don't you understand? Specifically, which part of it implies scaling up projects to the tune of trillions of dollars?
 

Quote

“I think we're at the end of the era where it's going to be these, like, giant, giant models”

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Please share source so I may read it in context.
 

https://www.wired.com/story/openai-ceo-sam-altman-the-age-of-giant-ai-models-is-already-over/

$7T points to not "giant" but "beyond gargantuan"

Hey what the heck I was gonna link the following smoking-gun tweet that someone forwarded to me in HIS SUPPORT of Altman and Altman DELETED IT! Why?? That's not nice at all!!

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Hopefully, people are forewarned after learning the historical antics of the FAANG founding CEO's and how they got where they are.

I have read recently that, collectively, Western-cultured minds are not naturally tuned to the demands, complexity and intensity of large scale chip manufacturing. We don't seem to do precision and conformity as a form of cultural second nature, like the Eastern Asians. They are doing this stuff today, and not us, for a reason, methinks.

(I saw TheVat quoting you, forgot I still have you on block, unblocked)

I don't think anyone who is outside of the industry, either in north/south/east/west, would or perhaps even could comprehend the scale. A colleague joked to me about fusion power, and I kinda doubt if that's enough even if it outputs 10x. Just that monster data-center network used to model-condition (hate using the word "train" in reference to machines) and respond with uh... $7T worth or even $1T worth of hardware is on the level of entire usage swaths of medium-sized COUNTRIES, not just cities as in the case of power-gobbling crypo-mining farms.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Massively, massively, FRAUDULENT, "developmental posture." The Samster said he's focused on raising funds from UAE (United Arab Emerates.....) so he's counting on the desert oil barons and UAE royal family members there to fall for his money-draining scheme?”

You’ve not shown any fraud or criminal behavior. You assume it’s fraud, but you don’t know the details (or haven’t shared them). You don’t have any evidence. It’s all conjecture.

I'm going to respond with the same sort of line I used in the first thread.

Let me put it this way. Someone ask you for $7000 dollars for something that could be done for much less than $500, on top of the fact that he already acknowledged elsewhere to someone else that spending money on that particular thing would be useless. Are you still not going to call this a grift?

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

More likely IMO is he sees how slow the pace of the hardware production has become, how shortages are everywhere unable to scale with massive and still accelerating demand, and he wishes to get key players thinking in a fundamentally bigger way and to act to meet the need as he defines it. 

Reach for the stars, maybe you’ll get lucky and reach the moon. That sort of thing. 

It doesn't jive with his very own rhetoric. He himself already said scaling up isn't going to help. Let's put aside any of his rhetoric for a moment; The sheer scale is already off the chart. Nothing, literally nothing, takes nearly that much.

NASA Space Shuttle program from start to finish: $209 billion (2010 dollars) including 134 flights  https://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html

......that's start to finish. Not just start.

If you're talking "moon shot," well that's still not it.

The entire Apollo 1960-1973 program was $257 billion (2020 dollars) https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

No.......... you're not waving this one off

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

I didn’t specify what the hyperbole was. How is it reasonable to assume that this was it? 

Okay. Could you state what the hyperbole was?

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just gonna highlight for you how none of these are mine. You can tell bc there’s no X button to undo it 

 

Retaliating against someone who did nothing to you strikes me as asymmetric. 

Thanks, +1 for confirming.

Still didn't like what you said in the other thread when I gave it a neg

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Who alleged that it was “non-interesting”

The quote was that your thread was not fostering interesting discussion, and, frankly, it did not. It was just hyperbole. Your objections seem to be predicated on the UAE investors not being able to do their own due diligence and make an informed decision. Has any money changed hands, or even been obligated?

 

Your link doesn’t seem to be supporting your claim. It’s not a news story. It’s an ad for a workshop.

Let's be generous and discount his tweet, and that he's going to make his own manly fabs (ref what ex-AMD CEO Sanders said a long while back)

That's still 20X Samsung

How is that part "hyperbole"

First part here:

Now for the second part, since it's allegedly "non-interesting."

I do find it "interesting" how Sam is going to a foundry now, complete with a Government wig who's tagging along:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/events/ifs-direct-connect.html

Now think about this for half a minute. He's not even building anything ground up- There's been zero indications of that. Every indication he's given so far points to "ready made" sources (see above post), either buying hardware outright (the GPU kits he tweeted about) or going to a foundry to procure silicon.

It would be doubly puzzling/"interesting" why that he's asking $7 TRILLION for this endeavor. Since NOT going ground-up costs SIGNIFICANTLY less than supplying yourself from your own fabs AND your own process tech R&D (such reasons is why Samsung, Intel, and IBM are basically the ONLY semiconductor verticals left in the whole world after AMD jettisoned theirs a while back)

Question remains that what in the world is the Samster gonna do with even ONE trillion (#1 Samsung is only about a third of that trillion...) let alone SEVEN trillion.

For reference, TSMC is "only" spending 40 Billion in Arizona, and that's spread across TWO FABS, a project that's already huge in every way (21k construction jobs, world's biggest cranes that couldn't fit on a 2-lane, etc.):
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2022/12/07/what-to-know-phoenix-taiwan-semiconductor-factory/69707994007/

Quote

Between the two fabs, TSMC is sinking $40 billion into the projects. The company likely will qualify for federal grants under the CHIPS & Science Act when funding guidelines are announced early next year.

The fabs are expected to generate 21,000 construction jobs. They’re also going up with the help of one of the world’s largest cranes, a behemoth that workers must take apart and reassemble every time it moves to different job sites because it wouldn’t comfortably fit on even a two-lane highway.

Like the neurons vs transistors comparisons I've done before, I'm going to be extremely generous in this comparison:

• Ignore that Samsung has its own fabs already i.e. just ignore all those manufacturing plants, okay?
• Ignore the fact that Samsung does/make a whole load of other silicon stuff than just processors
• Ignore everything Samsung has built up over the decades, outside of investor valuation
• Instead of adding anything to OpenAI, just do separate new stuff, no creating verticals or anything despite any advantages of it and waste/opportunity costs of not going it

Open AI / Samster going to create a whole new R&D company that's about 20X times the size of Samsung (despite what he said about the uselessness of scaling up LLMs.............. guess he just did a huge 180 and double/triple/quadrippledown on the opposite.........) and farm out the results of that design to existing foundries.

Some design........... Why doesn't he work on a quantum computer instead? Why doesn't he invest exotic materials research (current foundries are more interested in refining processes. Sure they work with universities and all but that's hardly the same thing as pouring the entire company's process research resources into it!)??

Massively, massively, FRAUDULENT, "developmental posture." The Samster said he's focused on raising funds from UAE (United Arab Emerates.....) so he's counting on the desert oil barons and UAE royal family members there to fall for his money-draining scheme?

==============================

Let's give him the benefit of a sliver of doubt that he's actually going to build this "20X Samsung Uber Designhouse" that's going to eventually pump out silicon from the likes of Intel. What actual good is this going to do, in general?

Gary Marcus wrote an open letter to Sam Altman regarding this question.

https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-sam-altman

Quote

Dear Sam,

Why do you think that LLMs are going to “secure our collective future”? (Are you working on any technology other than LLMs?)

As Casey Newton recently argued “Generative AI clearly has many positive, creative uses... But looking back over the past year, it's clear that any benefits we have seen today have come at a high cost.”

How do we know that $7 trillion invested into LLMs and their infrastructure would not simply exacerbate those costs, grinding down content creators, women, and the environment, undermining democracy, destroying jobs, etc?

$7T might serve OpenAI well, and raise your public profile, but would it serve humanity? How certain of that bet can we be? What's the rush? (Also, what has the $100 billion grind on driverless cars brought society? Might people have rushed in too soon, technology-wise?)

The risk of premature commitment looms large.

– Gary Marcus

Uh, I'd say that Altman care for exactly none of those things. He's trying to raise trillions and pay himself billions.

On 2/11/2024 at 6:18 AM, iNow said:

Ok. Thx for the neg rep 👍

Since you commented regarding some neg rep in another thread and I couldn't answer there, I'll answer it here.

Unless none of those "emotive responses" (neg reps) in that thread were yours, I was simply returning the favor on a comment I didn't like. You didn't like something, and I didn't either.

...That's what these things are for, because that's how I've seen them used all along.

"No sir I don't like it." -Mister Horse

Got lots of those in the artificial consciousness thread when people couldn't give any support to their counter-opinions and "no sir I don't like it" is the only thing they could do (it must have broken the record for most negs in a single thread on this board or something)

Think I'll post a screenshot when the red number hits triple digits. I'll note this in my signature for the popcorn enjoyers.

On 2/11/2024 at 9:21 AM, TheVat said:

One possible interpretation is that those who want another Trump presidency really want Trump, while those who want Biden are more equivocal in their support, and blend into a large bloc that really want neither.  So an actual election might find that the majority that doesn't want Trump will cast a Biden vote even if they didn't answer surveys as a Biden supporter.  

Then I'm really curious as to what the poll questions actually are, as in do they just straight up ask "who are you going to vote for in the 2024 presidential election" instead of some weird stuff that gives people non-committal wiggling room.

If it's a straightforward "Biden or Trump for 2024?" then anyone from never-Trumpers to hardcore Biden campers would obviously answer "Biden."

On 2/11/2024 at 7:26 AM, MigL said:

It's simple enough.
If you stop searching for drivel,  the app's algorithm will stop feeding you drivel.

The keyword isn't "Elon" or "Musk" but "technology"

YT transcript:
 

Quote

 

i predict to you that it will be another step

in vladimir putin's strategy to separate

eastern ukraine from ukraine and perhaps

a land bridge to crimea no it's a very

bad result and again we would not send

weapons to the ukrainians when they were

begging for them we wouldn't even give

them intelligence because we didn't want

to quote provoke vladimir putin by

showing weakness we provoked vladimir

putin

 

 

 

...and that's exactly what happened- Russia taking over Eastern Ukraine to create a land bridge to Crimea.

I think he's also right about the reason for the eventual invasion: The weakness shown by US towards Putin. My punctuated requote:

Quote

"We would not send weapons to the Ukrainians when they were begging for them; We wouldn't even give them intelligence because we didn't want to, quote, 'provoke Vladimir Putin' ...By showing weakness, we provoked Vladimir Putin." -McCain, 2014

The "NATO encroachment provocation" narrative of the spark of the Russian-Ukrainian war is incorrect. What provoked Putin wasn't the intimidating strength being shown by NATO but weakness shown by the United States. Putin knew that the US wasn't willing to shore up Ukraine, especially after the nothingburger it was served after the Crimea invasion.

If Trump wins the election, Ukraine is fucked. Trump will withdraw aid, and Ukraine won't have a chance thereafter. After Russia overruns Ukraine, Moldova is next. The situation in and around Transnistria sounds similar to the one that existed in Crimea prior to Russian invasion and annexation:
 

Quote

Russian troops have occupied Transnistria since the early 1990s when Russia invaded the region under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians.

Just remember that if you've got these deadly "automatically driven" road missiles hitting you and maybe killing and maiming you, no one would take responsibility:

Drivers blame car because it's "driving itself":
https://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/local/missouri-highway-patrol-see-more-self-driving-cars-accidents

Quote

After crashing, drivers in Missouri are telling state troopers they aren't at fault because the car was "driving itself."

Cpl. Dallas Thompson with the Missouri State Highway Patrol said the department's been seeing more vehicles with autonomous features, like Tesla, in crashes.

"We've had several crashes that we've worked where the driver has told us they [weren't] driving, that the vehicles were driving themselves," Thompson said. "And the capability is there in a lot of vehicles now. That's not something you should trust your vehicle to do."

Car makers blame the drivers:
https://safeautonomy.blogspot.com/2023/09/no-mercedes-benz-will-not-take-blame.html

Quote

There seems to be widespread confusion about who will take the blame if the shiny new Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot feature is involved in a crash in the US. The media is awash with non-specific claims that amount to "probably Mercedes-Benz will take responsibility."  (See here, here, here, and here)

But the short answer is: it will almost certainly be the human driver taking the initial blame, and they might well be stuck with it -- unless they can pony up serious resources to succeed at a multi-year engineering analysis effort to prove a design defect.

This one gets complicated. So it is understandable that journalists on deadline simply repeat misleading Mercedes-Benz (MB) marketing claims without necessarily understanding the nuances. This is a classic case of "the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" lawyer phrasing.  The large print in this case is "MERCEDES-BENZ TAKES RESPONSIBILITY" and the small print is "but we're not talking about negligent driving behavior that causes a crash." 

The crux of the matter is that MB takes responsibility for product defect liability (which they have to any way -- they have no choice in the matter). But they are clearly not taking responsibility for tort liability related to a crash (i.e., "blame" and related concepts), which is the question everyone is trying to ask them.

Koopman points out that the deflection of responsibility by all parties is secondary to people getting hurt/killed:

Tesla driver does not remember killing anyone:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tesla-driver-believes-his-car-would-ve-been-using-self-driving-feature-if-he-hit-and-killed-mille-lacs-doctor/ar-BB1i3xGz

Quote

"He does not remember hitting Cathy Donovan with his Tesla, but said if he did he would have been alone in his Tesla, driving on 'auto-pilot,' not paying attention to the road, while doing things like checking his work emails," BCA Special Agent Chad Kleffman wrote in a search warrant affidavit.

On 2/9/2024 at 6:52 AM, Endy0816 said:

They'll know the math that goes into them, but that offers limited insight.

Lot of them are functionally blackboxes, though there are ongoing efforts to make things less opaque.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ai-s-black-box-problem-challenges-and-solutions-for-a-transparent-future

 

I don't think of them as black boxes at all. I think the "black box" designation is a myth.

Again I'd point to Wolfram's explanation of neural nets and their role in LLMs:

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/

The input data form these attractor regions with the signals that are distributed across the network, and the more data you put in, the better the resultant curves fit to the data (of course). It's just a way of encoding inputs and form them into 3D "landscapes" where later on data points can be compared to see which region it correspond to on that 3D curve.

That's how all these things "function"... via correspondence effects. If a signal comes out at the other end correspond to a particular region, it's the result of the form-fitting and not any "meaning" the system is somehow comprehending. This is why these things are always vulnerable to adversarial attacks, because they rely on correspondence.
 

Picture labeled as "panda" + pixels invisible to the naked eye = picture labeled as "gibbon"

I don't know about "GOP" but that asshat is still ahead in the polls (and always ahead when I check, which is why I usually don't check) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

6 hours ago, iNow said:

There’s likely benefit in additional practice of your moving on skills, as not everyone enjoys continued beatings of deceased equines as much as you seem to. 

You're certainly not "moving on."

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Trillion. T

 

Yes correct, but you missed some then repeated the mistake again AFTER making this edit 

Yeah I've never even written about trillions of dollars in any discussion before. Not sure what point you're making if you're just picking on it.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Sellers have asking prices. Altman is looking to be a buyer in this situation

Do you know what asking for investors' money mean?

Let me put it this way. Someone ask you for $3000 dollars for something that could be done for much less than $300, on top of the fact that he already acknowledged elsewhere to someone else that spending money on that particular thing would be useless. Are you still not going to call this a grift?

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your linked article is short on detail, but it says he wants the money to build chip plants. Do you have evidence he’s not going to build these plants?

Trillions not billions, I did that again. 
He's not going to build 7 trillion worth of anything. Samsung, the largest vertical of them all, is hundreds of billions and not a trillion, much less 7 of them. Also, his tweet was buying GPU and not even building anything. His asking price is clearly fraudulent