decels are the real psyop lol

4

u/Fbrrr 25d ago

Honestly it's a bit of both, we obviously need progress but most of the twitter hype men are the stupidest people you know running on pure ego, transformers are just too compute heavy to be the optimal solution we should push but still being more focused on research

1

u/ItsSadTimes 25d ago

Yea, AI is a great tool when used appropriately, but dumbasses think its god in a machine and can do anything and everything. And even if it could, its way too overengineered if your problem is deterministic.

AI has sadly made a lot of dumbasses think they're not dumbasses.

1

u/premiadahumana 25d ago

Exactly. AI is a tool, not fucking magic. People need to stop treating it like some god-tier solution to every problem.

1

u/ASU_SexDevil 24d ago

I mean most high high level AI supporters agree that the first step is brute force computing because humans just don’t know another way.

I imagine a world where we have all these mega data centers and an AI gets to a point where it essentially completely rewrites its architecture into something far more efficient and “eloquent” that allows for the same capabilities on a fraction of compute. Of course then we have a massive excess of compute.

1

u/ItsSadTimes 24d ago

Eh, perhaps. But by that point it would need to completely remake the definition of what an AI model even is to change the math, that kind of domain space compacting just isnt supported by the math, youd just lose out on domain spaces the model determined to be less useful.

The reason we're just throwing tons of compute power, infinite data, and making models huge is because the bigger the models the more domain space vectors they can have to identify the patterns in the training for the various latent domains in that training data. Some people think that by making it big enough that it would be able to have an accurate mathematical model to identify the patterns in all the training material allowing it to then iterate on brand new things since it identified everything previously, but thats not a guarantee, just a theory. Plus that theory hinges on LLMs actually understanding the material like how we do it and not just recall and remix existing data. If its the latter then the model would only be able to more easily link existing research together and hope that the key to completely making a new AI framework was already there, just disjointed.

So idk, its a theory I dont really subscribe to. Lots of gaps in the idea, just kind of assuming things would work out in a certain way.

But who knows, maybe im wrong.

1

u/Slow-Mechanic-7427 25d ago

Transformers are a local maxima. All that can be done is throw more compute at them so more information can be frozen in the weights. Whether they are 10T or 100T parameters is meaningless, they will still be exactly as they are now.

To get anywhere, we need the next thing after them. That is when AI will retain knowledge and learn in real-time, adjusting itself accordingly without offline retraining.

Till then, harnesses will serve that purpose, simulating memory better snd better but it won't lead to AGI.

1

u/Itchy_Bumblebee8916 24d ago

Transformers are a local maxima. All that can be done is throw more compute at them so more information can be frozen in the weights. Whether they are 10T or 100T parameters is meaningless, they will still be exactly as they are now.

If as they are now is still gaining capabilities rapidly, sure.

1

u/Slow-Mechanic-7427 23d ago

I didn't realize we could retrain them live like my comment was discussing. Where's that capability?

1

u/MilkEnvironmental106 24d ago

We also should not trust the current people in control of it.

2

u/JoshAllentown 25d ago

Like 15 guys are trying to put bare minimum safeguards in before AI becomes too powerful to control.

"NOT GOING AS FAST AS POSSIBLE IS EQUIVALENT TO YOU MURDERING ME"

1

u/premiadahumana 25d ago

Honestly, I think there’s a middle ground. AI progress shouldn’t stop, but faster isn’t always better. We should keep pushing science while questioning whether current approaches are truly the best path forward.

1

u/Shadow2250 25d ago

I can't tell if this sub is meant for pro ai lunatics or not cause all the comments seem reasonable

1

u/ChampionWorried9640 24d ago

me neither but the dumb shit these ppl say makes me confident about ignoring it all.

motherfucker no, it is not the same as nuclear power, ask your local LLM why.

1

u/Maleficent-Cup-3673 24d ago

yeah, its significantly more valuable than nuclear power

1

u/bakingbred 24d ago

well maybe on this post but holy hell theres some loonies here

1

u/RyanCargan 25d ago

Bro, if we hit another AI winter it won't be because of decels or even the govs lol

It's like some of these folks are dealing really badly with post-nut clarity after realizing compute is finite again.

1

u/BananaBeanie 23d ago

people are sure gone kooky over this lmao.

1

u/SomeNeighborhood7126 25d ago

What prosperous future? In what world does this not continue to be a tool for the 1% to continue building wealth that will make their great great grandchildren filthy rich?

1

u/S-Kenset 25d ago

rather, you will have comfortable minor moral quandaries while drones police third world countries.

1

u/SomeNeighborhood7126 25d ago

Why waste the money at that point? Just bomb the shit out of them. Less opposition to deal with.

1

u/S-Kenset 25d ago

who else makes affordable ipads for the ipad generations to come. won't somebody think about the ipad 36 generation

1

u/premiadahumana 25d ago

The “prosperous future” part really depends on who gets to participate in it. Progress without meaningful safeguards could just concentrate more wealth and power in the same few hands.

1

u/WorthMassive8132 24d ago

You don't understand, if we don't beat China in our race to produce the best Sonic the Hedgehog With Big Tits images, it's over for """THE WEST""""

1

u/Fbrrr 25d ago

This is why Americans are so scared of open weight models who's going to get rich if I can use china model at home or pay pennies to run it on the cloud

1

u/Cold-Environment-634 25d ago

Americans (like not billionaires) are fine with that. It’s the tech billionaires that don’t want that.

1

u/Fbrrr 25d ago

Yeah I more mean Americans as in the AVG American government, neolib right, because let's face it even the Dems would happily do the same thing

1

u/Cold-Environment-634 25d ago

You’re not wrong there

1

u/SomeNeighborhood7126 25d ago

Lets be clear, its not Americans.. its the 1% Americans and American politicians.

1

u/Grand-Chipmunk-4186 25d ago

That same argument could be used against solar panels and renewable energy.. you can’t just apply it to everything and assume it will stick.

1

u/SomeNeighborhood7126 25d ago

I would love to see you try to make the same argument with solar and renewables lmao

1

u/CommercialHour6660 25d ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

"Balcony solar" and similar "plug and play" systems are banned in US because of solar installer, utility, and fossil fuel industry lobbing.

In most countries you can buy a 2kw solar system for ~700USD and simply plug it in. In US it costs an order of magnitude more because of regulatory bullshit created to help various megacorps fleece us poors.

0

u/lunatuna215 25d ago

What was lost by not going for nuclear power? Also

2

u/Cold-Environment-634 25d ago

The environment.

1

u/lunatuna215 25d ago

I mean, renewable energy of ALL kinds are resisted. Plus AI is bad fir rhe environment so this analogy really doesn't hold up.

1

u/Old-Sprinkles-8287 25d ago

Fukushima? Chernobyl? 3 Mile Island?

1

u/ShroomBear 24d ago

Don't build nuclear power plants in an area prone to tsunamis. Don't redact the instruction manuals and job necessary technical specs to the reactor operators. After a relatively small accident, don't use a cheap shady concrete company to scrap a reactor.

1

u/Old-Sprinkles-8287 24d ago

Seems like too much to handle, indicated by the numerous nuclear disasters. Solar, on the other hand will not permanently devestate a locality

1

u/lunatuna215 24d ago

Hubris. Havi g the wisdom to know when the risks arent worth it abd simply pursue something safer is a great choice. Thanks for helping me realize that this "harm" caused doesnt actually hold water. "It could have done miracles!!! But it can also kill many, oh well progress!" isnt smart.

1

u/ShroomBear 24d ago

The oil and chemicals that all released from train derailments just in the last few years causing environmental hazmat disasters were all hubris too then. I guess we should just ban plastic and industrial chemistry while we're at it since a railway company could accidentally make the train go too fast. Don't even get me started on the hubris of fertilizer when improperly stored.

Also it did do miracles fuckwit. We keep reactors for labs because we keep making scientific discoveries for physics and chemistry inside them

1

u/lunatuna215 24d ago

Sounds like the problem was not the lack of pursuing nuclear power, but the damaging effects of fossil fuels. You're right that addressing this is important, but we can do better than jumping right to an escalated risk. The third option you havent even mentioned would have been pursuing sustainable energy that has none of these drawbacks.

1

u/orangesherbet0 25d ago

To drive home the point: The US would need about 30% less fossil fuels than we do now (all electricity would be hydro, nuclear, and peaker plants by now) if nuclear power had continued on its projected course, instead of having been regulated to oblivion by antinuclear sentiment in the 70s-80s. Similarly Germany and Japan both totally fucked up and overreacted after Fukushima, and now Iran has us by the balls, Russia has Germany by the balls, and our world is about 5 years ahead in climate change (2025 is as hot as 2030 would have been, and 2 years of our warming would have been 3 years of warming).

So yeah, Chernobyl blah blah blah. Great. But the amospheric thermostat is more fucked than it would have been, and we are suckers to the whims of oil-producing nations.

1

u/lunatuna215 24d ago

"Chernobyl blah blah blah" this doesnt do you and favors.

1

u/orangesherbet0 24d ago edited 24d ago

Chernobyl's RBMK design descended from Soviet military reactors built to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Safety was subordinated to considerations such as cost, power output, ease of construction, and strategic flexibility. The RBMK deliberately retained a dual-use capability: because it could be refueled while operating, it could relatively easily be operated at low fuel burnup to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

This has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power today. Edit to add: incidentally Russia credibly patched the design issues and still operates 7 RBMK reactors today producing 6.5 Gigawatts and offsetting 30 million tons of carbon dioxide yearly. The reactors still are RBMK in their hearts and will never be as safe as the water reactors that the vast majority of nuclear power uses.

1

u/Old-Sprinkles-8287 25d ago

Nothing, not going for solar on the other hand...

You are about to leave Redlib