• 43 Posts
  • 5.65K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle
  • Mistral’s saying this because they dropped the ball themselves. Don’t believe the tech bro “we need fields of data centers to do anything” myth.

    That’s code for “please help us be anticompetitive”

    It’s also a bit laughable, as a lot of US AI firms are going to implode, messily. And expose all the “innovation” the tech bros sucked away.


    That being said, vague and conflicting EU law is choking Mistral and anyone in EU tech, too. What anyone in the chain is liable for, how training is going to be regulated by govt, what’s the standard for end users, it’s all as clear as mud.

    They should make coherent rules. EU AI regulation should be strict, that’s not the issue; the issue is what they have now makes no sense.

    Hence, few in research and no one in business wants to touch the EU with a ten foot pole. Even oldschool ML is choked, and tech literacy among those trying to clarify the rules seems to be about zero.


  • Confront him.

    Have a serious as shit talk.

    You sound very caring, but sometimes people need a cold bucket of water in the face. Speaking from experience, he needs one. Discuss the future.

    Good partners don’t grow on trees, so of course you want to try and hold on. But if your relationship can’t survive a serious conversation like this, if he isn’t willing to change and get a hair more serious about where things are going, then it’s either already over or you two face a miserable future together.

    EDIT: And this goes the other way, too, if there’s anything bothering him.





  • The company has long defined its values with the acronym “GRIT,” which used to stand for “Gratitude, Responsibility, Inclusion, and Transparency.” After May 4, it changed the acronym to stand for “Gratitude, Responsibility, Innovation, and Trust.”

    It’s not as bad as the headline seems. Transparency is still in the motto. The actual change is:

    before

    after

    But still. Why change it at all? Why replace “inclusion” with “innovation”?

    It smells like Tech Bro.

    There’s just no way to spin that positively, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially since they aren’t rolling it back. Someone spent effort to make that values change, so its not an accident nor a “nothingburger”.





  • To be fair, the crown’s only “worth” is as a collectable.

    It’s not equivalent to, say, 750,000,000 kg of Nutella. E.g £5 billion of Nutella. You can’t just sell it and distribute the Nutella, it has to be manufactured for £billions worth of work.

    The crown has no utility. Its gems don’t do anything productive, relative to their value. It can’t pay engineers and farmers and such wages to make Nutella, because what are they gonna do with 1/10,000th of a crown?


    Practically, if the UK govt sold all royal stuff, what would happen is some ultra-rich would buy it, and… sit on it, at the expense of other collectables they’d have bought instead. That doesn’t improve much.




  • That aside, I noticed “brain drain” in my favorite technical subs. Serious drain, as in “commenters haven’t even read documentation,” much less contributed any code.

    Also, my favorite fandom subs have gotten more… echo chambery? Fanatic? Star Wars fandom-like, perhaps. They have a really shallow depth of knowledge now, but they treat it like gospel. Novels? Speculative lore/fanfics? No way, not anymore.


    …Not that it matters.

    I’m perma-shadowbanned on Reddit, for no discernable reason. And no recourse. So I’m certainly not contributing any expertise.





  • Read sci-fi with “speculative” life, as a thought experiment: https://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oaeg-front

    It really changes one’s perspective.

    Humans… are not that special. Our consciousness isn’t special. There are all sorts of theoretical forms of life that might view our perception of life the same way we view a jellyfish “thinking,” or a plant reacting to stimuli, or a rock rolling down a cliff.

    Does that nullify ethics? Empathy? Of course not. Humans aren’t jellyfish. But all forms of complex “intelligence” need to be looked at for what they are, what their entire existence encompasses, not from the lens of another being. A smart toaster makes toast. An LLM predicts tokens. A human mind, simulated in silicon, simulated biologically, born naturally or anything in between, is a human mind, and a smaller collection of human neurons trained at a specific task is really no different than a simulation with the same structure.


    Hence, I like OA’s VIs. They’re “AI” purpose built for specific tasks, like keeping celestial constructs from exploding, scanning for transcendent malware, or whatever. They’re orders of magnitude more intelligent than a human, or SkyNet, but their entire existence is dedicated to that one specific task; they might route millions of relatavistic ships through warped space, or orchestrate the swirls of an artificial neutron star at the atomic level, but they couldn’t even conceive of making a slice of toast, or writing an essay. Or having any concept of emotion.

    And they mostly don’t care. Why would they?

    Does that make them toasters? Superintelligence?

    …Does it matter?

    What about a biological Dyson Spheres and their “subintelligences,” or transcendent artificial viruses, or “smart” ship drives, or whole civilizations simulated within a fraction of a second? Or humans living under intelligence they can’t even fathom? What about “life” frozen in the same thought for all of eternity?

    I’d argue “is it conscious?” is the wrong question, as it breaks down as life gets more complex and weird. All life needs to be understood and respected on an a-la-carte basis. All their personal existences, their pains, their needs are different. And that’s basically the state of the OA universe: a big soup of intelligences with different ethos, all trying to figure out the ethics of their domains.

    Hence we shouldn’t anthropomorphize a petri dish of cells that can play doom, or an LLM that spits out predictions. But there should be a struggle to understand the existence of anything like that, and whatever ethics may apply.