Only the AI labs are really interested in closed models. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, ... they'd rather go back to doing stock buybacks and being ridiculously profitable rather than raising capital for all this research and datacenters. They only do it because they think they have to.
So, if they got ahead of us by whatever arbitrary measure someone pretends is objective, then suddenly our stuff… what… stops working? Does it say somewhere in the big book of AI rules that the first entity to beat the US AI companies would be in charge now, and we’d have to stop doing our own research and development and start using their shit exclusively? I don’t get the argument.
If the leading model companies aren't profitable long-term, how do we get the money to continually spend on more research and more compute?
I get that plenty of people don't like big corporations or stock buybacks or certain CEOs, which is fine. But as someone who wants to see AGI happen FASTER, I really want to see a clear financial reason for maximal AGI investment.
If the model labs aren't clearly profitable, or open source models eat all the 'model layer' profit - what financial force will push forward very expensive experiments/scaling, etc.?
What I think is that something the "exponential scaling to AGI" thesis pays too little attention to is resource constraints, and that this is the answer to your question. What will happen if it becomes difficult to sustain the investment of resources necessary to continuously train newer and better models is that the s-curve will start to inflect toward plateau, just like any other technology.
> If the model labs aren't clearly profitable, or open source models eat all the 'model layer' profit - what financial force will push forward very expensive experiments/scaling, etc.?
It's hype - when the hype dies the great push will slow.
My hypothesis is that we'll end up with something like Seti@Home where continued model training gets outsourced to a benevolent appearing product (something like what OpenAI started out as). If I were to bet - Europe and Canada seem best poised (especially the latter) to produce an AGI initiative with a strong ethical focus.
That's a non sequitur. While the frontier LLMs are quite useful for many tasks there's no reliable evidence that scaling them up will ever produce a true AGI. More likely some other fundamental research breakthroughs will be needed, and those breakthroughs won't necessarily come from the current leading companies. I doubt that more money would be necessary or even helpful in that.
OK well then let's check back here in a few years to see if any of them managed to build an AGI. Until then it's just idle speculation. Anything could happen ... or not.
None of those are AGI data point points. LLMs are making terrific progress but it's unknown whether they're progressing towards true AGI or in some other direction.
I think you'll find very few people here sympathetic to misanthropic (ba dum tss) goals like yours. It's evident at this point that AGI will destroy economies, democracy, and upward mobility. There is no Star Trek future. There is only an Elysium future with AGI.
That's not the same thing as visual snow. Or rather, it doesn't have to be. Lots of people do see phosphenes with their eyes closed, like "prisoner's cinema". Human vision is wild.
Maybe it's like a dimly lit room. Some people can fall right asleep while others will say they can't sleep unless it's completely dark, but it's the same amount of "distraction" either way.
In every AI-written post, we have the script: some top post complaining it's AI-written, someone cluelessly saying they don't see it, and another person pointing out the claudisms. Sometimes someone posts a link to pangram.
I think we need the moderation team to set up some policy. In which direction idk.
Right, SO was always better at answering beginner questions then advanced ones, except if the complex question had a broad appeal. Part of it is because the format is not good for asking a context-heavy question. Another part because you were dependent on the pool of people answering, and the more niched the question was (using a library not very popular, for instance) or the more expertise it required, the less likely you were to find someone.
Back then library and framework authors were also less competitive. Now open source authors do the full court press with very beautiful docs for both humans and agents.
Undefined behavior is not the same as implementation-defined or unspecified behavior. A program with undefined behavior is by definition an incorrect program. But there are cases where the spec actually gives some margin to the implementation. Programs relying on the choices of the implementation may be correct, even if non-portable.
>A program with undefined behavior is by definition an incorrect program.
This is simply false and an oft repeated myth. Undefined behavior has a specific technical definition that is in the C++ standard [1] and there is absolutely no mention in that definition or the implication of that definition that undefined behavior necessarily results in an invalid or incorrect program.
The definition of undefined behavior, right from the standard itself is... and I quote... get ready for it...
"behavior for which this document imposes no requirements"
That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
The standard even goes out of its way to state the following:
"Permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, *to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner* characteristic of the environment".
Behaving in a documented manner characteristic of an environment is a far cry from being by incorrect by definition.
>This document imposes no requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined behavior
That's saying that programs that exhibit undefined behaviour are not governed by the C++ spec. For a program to be a valid, spec governed piece of C++ code it has to exhibit no undefined behaviour (outside of some constraints). Its accurate to say that any undefined behaviour results in the code being executed no longer being C++, and it can have any behaviour. That's synonymous in common developer speak with 'incorrect', as its desirable for your C++ code to be executed as C++
If the C++ standard imposes no requirements on such a program, then that means that the program is not C++. It's quite reasonable to describe such a program as an "incorrect [C++] program."
This is a semantic quagmire, and the threads on what undefined behaviour is are interminable. But just note this time around that correctness is not the same as conformity.
What's the difference? There's no such thing as "incorrect C++, but still C++." A program is either correct/valid/conforming C++, or it's not. We can reasonably describe "not" as "incorrect," or "invalid," "nonconforming," or just "not C++."
Do I love selective quoting! "Undefined behavior may be expected... when a program uses an incorrect construct or invalid data". There is also "erroneous behaviour" which "is always the consequence of incorrect program code".
Honestly, you'd have a better argument by quoting that "Correct execution" can include undefined behavior and erroneous behavior, depending on the data being processed". Which is quite a wild sentence to read, but here we are.
Just from the subtitle, you can already tell it's likely AI-generated. Maybe you're lucky enough not to be exposed to claude/codex output your whole working day.
I don't think that's the lesson. What I take from that is that people adapt to norms and incentives they have.
Despite all the talk about "academic integrity" and whatnot, very rarely were there punishments for people who cheated. For every professor that wrote FRAUD in the grade sheet and escalated to the Disciplinary Committee, there were 100 that turned a blind eye or at most confiscated a paper being passed around when the exam was being administered. This hypocrisy irked me much more than the cheating itself, in which I didn't partake mostly because 1) I thought it was kind of beneath me, something only mediocre students did (which I came to realize was not really true) and 2) I didn't care that much about the grade.
The only common drugs that cause deadly withdrawals are alcohol and benzodiazepines. Opioid withdrawals are famously extremely unpleasant but not typically considered life-threatening.
That's a stretched interpretation. The first sentence says the interval does not exceed 15 minutes. The most natural way to read the last sentence is that the competition rules state how long the half-time is under those parameters (i.e., the rules can state that the interval is 10 minutes, but not 1 hour); likewise, the referee can allow the competition organizers to change the duration of the interval -- the competition rules notwithstanding --, but still within the parameters of the 1st sentence.
reply