Id want to know if “AI” makes a material difference vs just having access to the wrong answer. Like someone could be given search access that successfully retrieved wrong answers to questions, would that give the same results. How much do uniquely AI characteristics, like sycophancy or the conversational aspect play into this, vs people just being willing to believe what they read?

The second is the AI race / existential risk / pretending we’re Oppenheimer track which I think is the larpiest, basically pretending that LLM chatbots are some kind of super weapon and role playing accordingly.

None of this means they’re useful, AI coding, for one, obviously is a valuable tool (though there remains a lot to sort out). But the usefulness is unfortunately being overshadowed by, as you say, people not resetting expectations and instead wanting to play terminator or neuromamcer or whatever (I’m sure there are more relevant sci fi).

Edit: that’s for one machine, would be interested to know if the upstream commenter with two has them networked to run bigger models? If I had two I might be inclined to have them running in parallel, the obvious limitation I’ve found with a single machine is that I can’t parallelize any tasks and I think I’d get more use out of the extra speed vs a bigger model (there’s nothing I’m too excited about in the say 200B range that having 256GB memory would unlock). But am very curious what others do

I would love to see something like a 90B A6B model that is optimized for 128GB machines e.g. strix halo, I haven’t seen anything really targeting the combination of RAM and compute these machines have, but I’m biased because I have one.

Here is the discussion from the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977147

They invest in people more than ideas, so you’ve got, at least in many cases, people with good pedigree and skills (age adjusted anyway) building on stupid ideas, but that are eminently employable.

Obviously there are other factors, I’m not really trying to defend anything but just point out that there are legit reasons why someone impressive enough to get into YC would also be impressive enough to get a good job. It’s not like it’s random founders off the street.

It’s 20 vs 32 in favor of Qwen on artificial analysis intelligence index (cohere isn’t benchmarked on the coding index)

This is they same company whose tvs take pictures of what you are watching and send them back to Samsung.

In 2 years presumably the SOTA models will be much bigger, but I won’t be surprised if there’s a fable level sub 50B parameter model by that point either*, in which case 1000 tok/s may be reasonable.

* on artificial analysis intelligence index, GPT 4o is 12 and Qwen 35B A3B is 32.

It would have been an interesting experiment to charge more for it right away and see what the market would bear, rather than tease it for long enough for it to be presumably superseded any time now by whatever is next.

I wonder what he thinks was too harsh, still seems pretty bang on, I think it’s going to age well.

Good advice obviously if it’s not being followed already but also likely over-simplifying the problem. Also a normal person on the receiving end would probe a bit about what has already been tried. Which to be fair makes the whole thing a bit weird and does sound more like she’s being brushed off.

  Just recently AI became “powerful enough” to warrant export controls from the US and maybe soon China.

Someone makes a made up claim, second party acts on made up claim, third party takes second party’s actions a proof of claim.

Reminds me of the “they’re eating pets” thing a bit.