You hire a PhD if you need someone that can do research. It's a bonus if you find an exact match to your research area, but it is certainly not a strict expectation.

AI isn't going to magically assemble a DNA sequence for you and a computer design is not a guarantee of something that works.

AI restrictionists love to pretend that their toys will, with the power of intelligence, magically bypass fundamental limitations of reality to conjure up fantastical weapons of mass destruction if they throw enough computers at the task. Unfortunately for them, that is not how the world works.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/researchers-ai-apocalypse-sk...

If you program a computer to make cocaine for you, you're the one violating the law. If you ask an LLM to do the same for you, you're the one violating the law. The LLM's capabilities are irrelevant.

They talk about distributing layers across devices, but then you'd have communication on the network and hours of driving the devices full tilt to get through even a single turn.

There's so much that can be monitored to catch these, even if we assume that the worm could hack the OS's usage monitors, it can't hide the heat and power draw.

Datacenters and PCs would adapt, requiring better monitoring than the AI companies' method of letting things run blindly for days/weeks.

IoT would be tougher, but it is also the weakest hardware, sometimes battery powered, thermally constrained, lacking in memory for processing even one layer or lacking the necessary connectivity.

This is just yet another attempt from the cult to try to build a regulatory moat so they can stave off having to compete on price, like how OpenAI is having to do on the lower tier models (among other things).

Most of the populist nonsense ultimately comes down to their delusion that they're being cheated out of the position they deserve as inherently superior people.

The benefit of llama.cpp etc is just ease of use for people not already familiar with the local AI landscape.

But also, there probably still is a lot of room for tuning and better utilizing the streaming capability, e.g. better speculative streaming to have the activated experts loaded in RAM by the time they're needed.

Currently, even if China pulls ahead, it doesn't have to mean things getting worse in the US. Contrary to what the current government seems to believe, growth is not necessarily zero sum. Despite Americans' perception of Europe, they too remain competitive in various domains of research. Similarly with, say, Japan.

Thanks for the interesting "erm-akshully" on the distinction!

They also aren't the ones screaming about how close they are to destroying the world. They're approaching the tech like building a tool rather than a god.

OpenAI and Anthropic have shown us that they have a strong incentive to leave holes in their systems so they can use them for marketing and regulatory capture.

It does not matter if competitors would not also agree to destroy their companies.

If I was competing with a bunch of people on building something that I came to believe would be an extinction level event, I wouldn't be saying "Even if I slowed/stopped, the others would not, so I have to keep going". I'd say that I want absolutely nothing to do with pushing it further, stop my work, then regardless of consequences, do everything possible to stop my competitors regardless of legality