No-one cares dude. People like good enough, convenient things that serve their entertainment needs, which is shaped by said entertainment, so there is not really an issue here.
Since they are up against a insurmountable mountain of capital which will commoditize and optimize whatever it wants, they are kind of in for a pointless fight with an inevitable end. They could save themselves a lot of despair if they saw the writing on the wall and pivoted to something that still has value, or accepted the new reality instead of throwing a fit.
That is too difficult as the concept (of trusting one's perception) is, I believe, intertwined deeply with other aspects of being human, for many people.
It's not reasonable to require that those people be mentally organized in a manner that already mistrusts reality, in a healthy manner.
Maybe it is a pointless fight with an inevitable end but at least I'll die with my humanity and dignity intact rather than being a boot licker for Sam Altman, but you do you.
You can die with your humanity at a farm growing veggies and being surrounded by people you love and still be consistent with that I write. Seeing the inevitable does not equal loving or wanting it.
I care deeply. It is not single-handedly going to destroy humanity. However, we are clearly on a course where people are more isolated, less challenged, less social, and very very very unhappy. Music is one of those things that can really bring people together. If we flood the zone with AI music (or any other art form) we will slowly edge out the humans who are doing that. That is less new music. Less chances to come together. Less chances to dance together. It's a death by a thousand cuts. I, and many others, think it's worth fighting for because we want others to have the amazing experiences we're having.
Every generation has a new baseline. The younger generation will not be able to imagine having anything other than doctors and psychologists in the phone, and they are content with it because it's all they know. Social media might be all the social connection they have, and that will be the best thing where they will have the best experiences, they won't know another baseline. Eventually maybe the best experiences will be had with digital companions, etc.
The only losers here are old or bitter people who have tied up their worldview into their own time and cannot see or comprehend that the world has moved on with a different bound for the experiences and expectations.
> Eventually maybe the best experiences will be had with digital companions, etc.
Obviously I can't speak for all of Gen Z (and I realize we're no longer "the younger generation"), but my friends and I don't want any part of this, and feel optimistic rather than bitter that things won't go the way you're describing. I seldom meet anyone in my age group that isn't talking about moving away from social media, cancelling software subscriptions, all of the things that millenials and Gen X seem to be so excited to continue building and promoting.
Even at my workplace the "older" people are the ones that are excited about stuff like AI jazz remixes of rap songs and AI generated short films, while literally everyone else under 30 finds it pretty cringe and makes fun of them in DMs.
So all that to say, I disagree with your outlook, but I guess time will tell.
Talking about and doing something are different things. What are the social and market structures around your friends that lets them avoid having a smartphone, cancelling subscriptions, and uninstalling everything? Do you see this getting better with media consolidations from Substack(Andreassen), Twitter(Musk), and Youtube channels by the hyperscalars/billionaries and questionable merges like Paramount and Warner Bros?
When the social culture is based around platforms and content that has subscriptions, and when media and what you see is consolidated, you can't just exit without losing a big part of the social context because the people around you are eating the same thing.
I dislike slop as much as anyone else. I think it puts a higher burden on the receiver of information to filter the signal in a pile of trash. I just don't really see an actual way out if you look at it from a societal level with the existing structures and incentives.
> you can't just exit without losing a big part of the social context because the people around you are eating the same thing.
That's exactly it. The goal is lose a big part of the social context. It driven by rage bait, AI bots, state actors, and a thousand other influences that are predominantly negative. Of course amazing things happen online. However, the good is not worth bad. I'm raising my kids and they will never have a smart phone. Will they miss out on somethings? Of course! They also won't have their attention span destroyed, their ability to be bored and creative in the real world destroyed, they won't have body issues, they won't be caught up in the alt-right pipeline, they won't have their brains fried by content like Mr. Beast which is designed to be as hyper and addicting as possible. Missing out on the current social context is the entire goal. People were happier before it.
This structure expects all of their friends to live in similar systems. Otherwise their friends will talk about games, memes, series at school while your kids are isolated away as they are not a part of the culture and not in the loop.
I think this is only possible if you find a community with similar values, like religious, or hippie, where the focus is put on other things. Otherwise you might deprive your kids of what you want to give them because they will not feel socially connected.
I am not an idiot. I'm well aware they will pick up things at school My 5 year old already knows who Mr. Beast is. He's never watched a video of his and never will at my home. If he watches one or two at a friends house that of course is going to happen. But he won't be consuming that poison regularly every day. My 8 year old is doing just fine. Happy. Healthy. Active. Lots of friends. And when they're older and fully functioning adults unlike some of these Gen Z zombies who have had their brain fried, they will thank me.
You can be very AI-skeptic in various ways and still think that this is a fair take.
I teach and supervise students as master's level courses, and about 15% of them have intrinsic motivation to learn. These students have set up their own AI tutors with prompts and know way more than me in certain areas of the field, they are extremely ahead of their class.
The issue in my country is that you equate education with getting a safe job. 20 years ago, you needed a high-school degree in social science to get a government job. 10 years ago you needed a bachelor in social sciences to get the same job. 5 years ago you needed a bachelor in economy/engineering to get the same job. Now, because of recessions this is stretching to masters degrees.
You can't expect people who just want a job and a comfortable life and NEED to go to uni for this to want to be curious and want to learn.
And on other side education attainment has become metric for governments. More degrees and higher the degrees are better it will be for the economy somehow. Where there is likely quite a lot of jobs that don't actually need the degree.
> about 15% of them have intrinsic motivation to learn [...] they are extremely ahead of their class.
Feels like whatever tool they'd be given, they'd be ahead anyway. What's more worrying IMHO is, are the remaining 85% faring even worst than they would have before because they are learning even less, not just slower than the 15% learning faster. Namely is the gain for the few a loss for the majority?
You are right on both counts. I do think that it's however different on the first concept. Before, they would be ahead but still capped by their university. If you come from a uni in a 100k person city, you probably would not have the material nor the best teachers. Now you can have literal Stanford quality education (by accessing Stanford's open source lectures) as well as the collective aggregated knowledge of humanity in the chat interface. The curiosity/intrinsic motivation is the only limit except for perhaps compute.
As for the other question, its mixed. I think about 20% of students understand that they are fucked if they just delegate it all to LLMs, they still go through the ropes and show up to class but do the minimum.
However most are down the deep end in various degrees. I have seen students with 5 different 3000-line files for 5 questions for the same lab where each file has 3 lines of code different. This never happened even when the students cheated by accessing old labs online or plagiarizing before.
I believe that what will happen (because universities move really slow on policy and education on LLM use), is that pre-LLM, the university had a normal distribution of skills upon graduation. A company could trust that someone with a degree knew X and Y. With this however, you have more of a bimodal distribution, some know nothing and some know it all, so then the trust in universities deteriorates. I think we will see much more IQ-test/practical tests in hiring processes as the trust falters for that a degree equals something.
A bit like "they do not have cancer", if you are fitting to a distribution you will have the best results by estimating an average. Being hetero is the majority/average, so a good prediction.
But doing this on a 20-way parlay like in this case will almost always fail.
Playing devil's advocate here, but in theory, you could claim that setting up harnesses, targets, verification and incentives for different tasks might be the learning that you are doing. I think that there can be a fair argument made that we are just moving the abstraction a layer up. The learning is then not in the specifics of the field knowledge, but knowing the hacks, monkey patches, incentives and goals that the models should perform.
Isn't this apples to pears comparison? It's really just saying that having a bigger credit card gets you shit faster, but it's actually worse in terms of GPU utilization and efficiency.
1) The total amount of time is not the same if you just count GPU-hours. If you have 16 GPUs, it makes sense to run them for 4.5 hours to get to 72h for an even comparison, not 8.
2) If we stop at 4.5 hours(and are generous including the big drop), the loss is about 0.978, which is the same as about 44 hours with the sequential solution, making the sequential solution about twice as efficient.
So the real conclusion here is that we are able to run things in parallel at an efficiency loss but at a time win as long as we have access to more hardware. I feel like the blog oversells itself.
I believe that's it's sadly a necessity for control of the population when you have other superpowers employing this.
If you are Europe, and you have democratic elections, you have an informational power asymmetry towards the states that have mass surveillance and control. You are (as we saw last year with the Romanian election that was swung to 60% in 2 weeks over TikTok) susceptible towards influence of other superpowers. Even if you want to keep democratic elections, you need to somehow make sure that the citizens are voting in their interest. If the citizens at the same time are victims of the attention economy, their interest will be whatever foreign superpowers want it do be.
One well-tried solution is to engage and educate the population. However, this takes years, not weeks as the campaigns take, and takes immense resources as people will default to convenient attention economy tools.
Other option is to ban platforms/create country-wide firewalls. It's a lot harder in democratic societies, you ban one app and a new one takes it's place. Cat is kind of out of the bag on this one.
Last and easiest option is mass surveillance. Figure out who is getting influenced by what, and start policing on what opinions those people are allowed to have and what measures to take to them. Its a massive slippery slope, but I can clearly see that it's the easiest and most cost-effective way to solve this information-assymetry
As always, the devil is in the details. How will "mass surveillance" be implemented? How will bad opinions be suppressed? How will misguided officials be blocked?
Even the vague outline you've provided has issues. You can't prevent someone from having an opinion. You can't figure out who is "influenced" vs merely "exposed" (and visible intrusion shifts people towards the former).
You should actually consider the downsides and failure modes of implemented mass surveillance, not "it prevents malicious foreign influence better than my other proposals", because it may be worse than said influence (which does not necessarily translate into control; keep in mind that Georgescu only won the primary and would've lost the runoff had it not been annulled). The world under free information is the devil you know.
I always hold that the problem with mass censorship and state overreach is, they are too powerful and people are too selfish and stupid. There's no good solution, but my prediction is that any drastic attempt to prevent foreign interference will backfire and fail at that (liberal leaders can't use authoritarian tools as effectively as authoritarians). Even Democracy, "the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried", is a better countermeasure; all you need, to prevent anti-democratic foreign capture and ultimate failure, is to preserve it.
I think the definition of what is "anti-democratic" is as hard as the initial 3 questions you pose. If you push second-order ideas, for example by using refugees as indirect fuel for anti-democratic sentiment, is that anti-democratic? The Romanian election propaganda in itself was not anti-democratic, the coordination from a foreign state was. This means that the future of this kind of interference could be a more diffuse approach, or an approach where this is done from within Europe.
Any countermeasure you propose will just lead to moving one level of abstraction, or finding another point of entry.
I do think it's a better idea than mass surveillance, but I believe that the states will see it as harder. It can be that mass surveillance is implemented, and then the states do not know what to do with the data and nothing is achieved.
Regarding banning platforms I’d say just ban the attention driven business model online by forbidding all social media platforms from serving ads entirely.
To what end would you say the surveillance is for?
So you surveil your citizens and precog their opinions... to do what? Make them have state-sponsored opinions? Don't we already have that without the surveillance?
It's trivial to predict how a human will behave without any surveillance at all. Facebook abandoned their Beacon system not because of the backlash, but because they realized all they really needed to predict user behavior was the user's credit card statements, which they could easily buy.
At some point the constitution is the backstop, and unless we amend it, it should hold true.
I don't think that the EU member states have the same data access as companies in the US like Facebook do, and therein lies the problem. There is no good way to gather and connect data like Meta or Palantir can, you can't just sell things to the maximum bidder here. I think that's where the necessity comes from.
Who is doing the controlling in this take? "The Government"? Calling for more government control when some say--at least in the US--too much government is the heart of our current political strife. Unless this argument is for corporate surveillance?
As for elections in the age of social media, why not just pass Blackout laws around the date of the election? One week not sufficient? Make it two.
But instead the answer is mass surveillance? To do what? Arrest & detain people, and let the judicial system incarcerate them for months or years while the process plays out?
I am not for mass surveillance, I am saying it's the cheapest option to achieve the goal without disturbing the individual and causing social unrest. If you have a blackout, you will have businesses stopped, people will complain, people will use VPNs anyways, massive economic costs. Mass surveillance will just allow you to monitor, flag and perhaps later exclude people without affecting the rest.
>If you are Europe, and you have democratic elections, you have an informational power asymmetry towards the states that have mass surveillance and control. You are (as we saw last year with the Romanian election that was swung to 60% in 2 weeks over TikTok) susceptible towards influence of other superpowers
When Georgia tried to implement a law to inhibit this type of foreign meddling from all superpowers it was widely branded a "pro russia law", presumably because the west had invested more in astroturfing Georgia.
Which is no different to what the US and Europe was already doing in Romania on an ENORMOUS scale before Russia ran its Tiktok campaign. Russia's campaign evidently resonated with the populace far more than what the NED were doing.
Democracy is a bit like freedom of speech - either you support it even when it makes decisions you dont like (e.g. in opposition to western imperialism) or you hate it. There isnt a middle ground.
If you support the Romanian secret services' decision to cancel the election over a tiktok campaign which was more convincing than better funded NED campaigns which they permit, you probably just hate democracy.
If you think "pro russia law" is an accurate designation of what Georgia was trying to implement - again, you just hate democracy.
Thank you. Haven't seen this problem framed in quite this way before. I find the point quite persuasive.
But, I don't understand how this step could possibly work:
> start policing on what opinions those people are allowed to have and what measures to take to them
A much more effective counter to this would be to rebalance the information asymmetry by giving citizens the tools to coordinate against state sponsored influence.
It's a good suggestion, but the thing is that the average person does not care and does not want to use your tools. You can make an app that gives you correct news, where you can vote for local political issues, etc. Most people don't give a shit, you as a state are competing against the attention economy(evolving into an affection economy given LLM use).
You are competing against companies that are using biologically wired mechanisms, like short-burst 3-second information overload together with marketing signaling(consumer neuroscience) to make you do choices and then confabulate the choice to yourself as your own.
Any tool would have to either be made in a landscape where ALL of the attention/affection-economy tools are banned, OR use the same mechanisms.
I agree but I also think that authenticity is one quality that such a tool could offer that other things in the attention economy cannot.
Addictive things are addictive. But people are also capable, given the right circumstances, to go and "touch grass". People are capable of making choices that are good for them. Especially if we make those choices easy enough.
I often scroll too much but I also go into nature and meet irl humans. And it's not close to an insurmountable choice.
> A much more effective counter to this would be to rebalance the information asymmetry by giving citizens the tools to coordinate against state sponsored influence.
I am with you on this, and you can't win, because as soon as you voice this opinion you get overwhelmed with "you dont have the sauce/prompt" opinions which hold an inherent fallacy because they assume you are solving the same problems as them.
I work in GPU programming, so there is no way in hell that JavaScript tools and database wrapper tasks can be on equal terms with generating for example Blackwell tcgen05 warp-scheduled kernels.
There's going to be a long tail of domain-specific tasks that aren't well served by current models for the foreseeable future, but there's also no question the complexity horizon of the SotA models is increasing over time. I've had decent results recently with non-trivial Cuda/MPS code. Is it great code/finely tuned? Probably not but it delivered on the spec and runs fast enough.
I have done it, its not GPU-code, you are optimizing a toy compiler for a fictional framework. There is some SIMD mechanics but you cant call it GPU. There is a lot of such real challenges though - KernelBench, Project Popcorn, FlashInfer, Wafer, Standard Kernel.
Yeah, the argument here is that once you say this, people will say "you just dont know how to prompt, i pass the PTX docs together with NSight output and my kernel into my agent and run an evaluation harness and beat cuBLAS". And then it turns out that they are making a GEMM on Ampere/Hopper which is an in-distribution problem for the LLMs.
It's the idea/mindset that since you are working on something where the tool has a good distribution, its a skill issue or mindset problem for everyone else who is not getting value from the tool.
Another thing I've never got them to generate is any G code. Maybe that'll be in the image/3d generator side indirectly, but I was kind of hoping I could generate some motions since hand coding coordinates is very tedious. That would be a productivity boost for me. A very very niche boost, since I rarely need bespoke G code, but still.
Oh HELL no. :P Gcode is (at least if you’re talking about machining) the very definition of something you want to generate analytically using tried and tested algorithms with full consideration taken for the specifics of the machine and material involved.
I guess if you just want to use it to wiggle something around using a stepper motor and a spare 3D printer control board, it might be OK though. :)
reply