- Vast cost reduction (>10x)

- Performance parity of several open source models to GPT4, including some with far fewer parameters

- Much better performance, much larger context window in state-of-the-art closed source LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet)

- Multimodality (audio and vision)

- Prototypes for semi-autonomous agents and chain-of-thought architectures showing promising avenues for progress

To the people disagreeing with my parent statement, could you find one non far right affiliated legal scholar who would say those orders are illegal?

Apparently Llama 3.1 relied on artificial data, would be very curious about the type of data that Mistral uses.

Reporting on business issues is always muddled by a lack of proper comparisons, along with cherry picking. For example, this article makes the argument that increasing Microsoft's revenue by 4x was very impressive, even though the stock value stagnated. However, when evaluting his tenure as owner of a basketball club, he is declared successful because its value doubled. The problem is that Microsoft was eclipsed compared to its peers at the time - Google, Amazon, etc. -, and likewise the average basketball club doubled in value as well.

For context, the global electricity consumption in 2019 was around 23 TWh [1].

[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-information-overview...

I think his central point is fair and interesting. The test train split is apparently legit, as they used structures released before 2021 for training and the rest for testing. However, there was no real check for duplicates, and the success rate might be inflated by a bunch of "me too", low hanging fruit structures that are very slight variations from what we know.

However, I'm not sure I agree with his skepticism. LLMs suffer from the exact same problems - getting it to write a Snake game in any language is trivial, but it is almost certainly regurgitating - , but can be useful as well. I mean, if for various reasons people are publishing very similar structures out there, there's certainly value in speeding up or reducing that work considerably.

All of the replies here seem to point out that monopolies are bad and tech companies tend to be monopolistic. This is obvious and we all agree. However, when asked what is the difference between a mall and Apple Store, Varoufakis did not mention a monopoly or oligopoly as the issue, he mentioned rent. Specifically he mentioned that getting a percentage of profit was the biggest issue. I think this is not a strong argument for calling it a new economic model.

Q: A company like Apple might argue that instead of being a fiefdom, maybe the Apple App Store is more like a mall where companies have to rent their stores from whomever owns the building. How is technofeudalism different from the mall dynamic?

A: Well, hugely. Say you and I were going into partnership together with a fashion brand. We go to the shopping mall and we hire a shop, the rent is fixed. It is not proportional to our sales. The more money we make, the higher our price-to-rent margin. With the Apple Store, they get 30 percent of all sales. That’s not at all the same thing. That is the equivalent of the ground rent that the feudal lord used to extract from vassal capitalists.

You also didn't address the main point of the earlier comment. Is every programmer responsible - even criminally, some suggested - for potential bugs or vulnerabilities in one of their products?