LrnByTeach

to me, just that these lines from DeepSeek founder/CEO Liang Wenfeng gives a clue that China communist party involvement in DeepSeek-R1 is minimal or nothing. If CCP is involved in a big way, we won't see these words from CEO.

"For many years, Chinese companies are used to others doing technological innovation, while we focused on application monetization..."

“But in fact, this is something that has been created through the tireless efforts of generations of Western-led tech communities. It’s just because we weren’t previously involved in this process that we’ve ignored its existence.”

Such a relief/contrast to the period between 2010 and 2020, when the top five Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft monopolized their own regions and refused to compete with any other player in new fields.

Google : Search

Facebook : social

Apple : phones

Amazon : shopping

Microsoft : enterprise ..

Even still, this monthly progress across all companies is exciting to watch. Its very gratifying to see useful technology advance at this pace, it makes me excited to be alive.

yes, staggered software update is the way to go. there was reply in this thread why Crowdstrike did not do it -- don't want extra cost of Engineering for that

having 1/3 of Airlines computers Windows, RHEL, Ubuntu .. all unlikely to hit same problems at same time.

what many people of not taking is that why we are here:

one simple reason: all eggs in one Microsoft PC basket

why in one Microsoft PC basket?

- most corporate desktop apps are developed for Windows ONLY

Why most corporate desktop apps are developed for Windows ONLY?

- it is cheaper to develop and distribute since, 90% of corporations use Windows PCs ( Chicken and Egg problem)

- alternate Mac Laptops are 3x more expensive, so corporations can't afford

- there are no robust industrial grade Linux laptops from PC vendors (lack of support, fear of Microsoft may penalize for promoting Linux laptops etc.)

1/ Most large corporations (Airlines, Hospitals etc..) can AFFORD & DEMAND their Software vendors to provide their ' business desktop applications' both in Windows and Linux versions and install mix of both Operating systems.

2/ majority of corporate desktop applications can be Web applications (Browser based) removing the single vendor Microsoft Windows PC/Laptops

-

Wow !! good to know real reason for non-staggered release of the software ...

Crowdstrike bit my company with a false positive that severely broke the entire production fleet because they pushed the change everywhere all at once instead of staggering it out. We pushed them hard in the RCA to implement staggered deployments of their changes. They sent back a 50 page document explaining why they couldn't which basically came down to "that would slow down blocks of true positives" - which is technically true but from followup conversations quite clear that is was not the real reason. The real reason is that they weren't ready to invest the engineering effort into doing this.

my own analysis

Losers & Winners from Llama-3-400B Matching 'Claude 3 Opus' etc..

Losers:

- Nvidia Stock : lid on GPU growth in the coming year or two as "Nation states" use Llama-3/Llama-4 instead spending $$$ on GPU for own models, same goes with big corporations.

- OpenAI & Sam: hard to raise speculated $100 Billion, Given GPT-4/GPT-5 advances are visible now.

- Google : diminished AI superiority posture

Winners:

- AMD, intel: these companies can focus on Chips for AI Inference instead of falling behind Nvidia Training Superior GPUs

- Universities & rest of the world : can work on top of Llama-3

This might have been a reasonable and workable solution for all parties involved.

Context:

---------

1.1/ ILya Sukhar and Board do not agree with Sam Altman vision of a) too fast commercialization of Open AI AND/OR b) too fast progression to GPT-5 level

1.2/ Sam Altman thinks fast iteration and Commercialization is needed in-order to make Open AI financially viable as it is burning too much cash and stay ahead of competition.

1.3/ Microsoft, after investing $10+ Billions do not want this fight enable slow progress of AI Commercialization and fall behind Google AI etc..

a workable solution:

--------------------

2.1/ @sama @gdb form a new AI company, let us call it e/acc Inc.

2.2/ e/acc Inc. raises $3 Billions as SAFE instrument from VCs who believed in Sam Altman's vision.

2.3/ Open AI and e/acc Inc. reach an agreement such that:

a) GPT-4 IP transferred to e/acc Inc., this IP transfer is valued as $8 Billion SAFE instrument investment from Open AI into e/acc Inc.

b) existing Microsoft's 49% share in Open AI is transferred to e/acc Inc., such that Microsoft owns 49% of e/acc Inc.

c) the resulted "Lean and pure non-profit Open AI" with Ilya Sukhar and Board can steer AI progress as they wish, their stake in e/acc Inc. will act as funding source to cover their future Research Costs.

d) employees can join from Open AI to e/acc Inc. as they wish with no antipoaching lawsuits from OpenAI

This may be a fair workable solution to all the parties involved.

Context:

---------

1.1/ ILya Sukhar and Board do not agree with Sam Altman vision of a) too fast commercialization of Open AI AND/OR b) too fast progression to GPT-5 level

1.2/ Sam Altman thinks fast iteration and Commercialization is needed in-order to make Open AI financially viable as it is burning too much cash and stay ahead of competition.

1.3/ Microsoft, after investing $10+ Billions do not want this fight enable slow progress of AI Commercialization and fall behind Google AI etc..

a workable solution:

--------------------

2.1/ @sama @gdb form a new AI company, let us call it e/acc Inc.

2.2/ e/acc Inc. raises $3 Billions as SAFE instrument from VCs who believed in Sam Altman's vision.

2.3/ Open AI and e/acc Inc. reach an agreement such that:

a) GPT-4 IP transferred to e/acc Inc., this IP transfer is valued as $8 Billion SAFE instrument investment from Open AI into e/acc Inc.

b) existing Microsoft's 49% share in Open AI is transferred to e/acc Inc., such that Microsoft owns 49% of e/acc Inc.

c) the resulted "Lean and pure non-profit Open AI" with Ilya Sukhar and Board can steer AI progress as they wish, their stake in e/acc Inc. will act as funding source to cover their future Research Costs.

d) employees can join from Open AI to e/acc Inc. as they wish with no antipoaching lawsuits from OpenAI

To account for the changing times, I believe a Personal LLM should be running on your phone (with a cloud data backup) with background AGENTS looking for shopping deals, working with your calendar and making appointments for all life chores such as your car oil change appointment bookings, recommending preventive maintenance repairs, answering on your demand questions on your your kids math/english report cards grade progress for last few semesters, and so on.

good to know what these "Company OS" stands for

Salesforce comes in at the sales side of things,

SAP invades as a finance app, and

ServiceNow begins their encroachment as an IT ticketing system,

but they all wanna be THE only cloud platform your company needs.

In my opinion LLM based document search tools such as OSS Quivr may be better suited for documentation search for startups.

A highly customed Quivr with one of the 'Open Source LLMs' may provides great 'semantic search' for product documentation.

https://github.com/StanGirard/quivr Dump all your files and chat with it using your Generative AI Second Brain using LLMs ( GPT 3.5/4, Private, Anthropic, VertexAI ) & Embeddings

This is at least the biggest release since 1.18 with generics, possibly bigger.

the changes demonstrate a transition from the traditional go philosophy of almost fanatical minimalism, to a more utilitarian approach.

This change demonstrate that "to stay as a mainstream" programming language, you can't preach minimalism , has to adopt utilitarian approach.

I think the following service may match what you are asking for , it is priced at $500 and from a reputable company.

https://www.angellist.com/incorporation

Included with Incorporation

Entity formation in Delaware

State filing fees

IRS Employer Identification Number (EIN tax ID)

Founder stock issuance, custom equity pool and 83(b) filings

Legal templates and founder discounts

1 free year of Delaware registered agent, $100 per year thereafter. Renews automatically

1 free year subscription to Base plan

This Falcon-40B royalty free license may force Meta ... that LLama-7B/13B may soon be fully open sourced as Meta wants open source LLM advancements and contributions on its own LLM architecture.

Interesting parallels , there is good possibility for this outcome with respect to Open Source LLMs

I can however see a possible future where open source is not going to have any significant impact on LLMs, say like Desktop Linux.

Either because it gets stuck in a technical realm and doesn't make anything too approachable to ordinary users, or because it lacks the necessary integrations..

This is the reality ..

When in human history have we ever intentionally not furthered technological progress? It's simply an unrealistic proposition ..

I suspect GPT5 most likely will have these capabilities that is to hook into external tools such as calculators and other software applications as needed based on the prompts.

There’s a specific feeling of knowing that an answer to your question is very simple and exists somewhere on SO, but the mental effort of sifting pages of answers seems unappealing. It seems like Phind is well suited to do this job for you!

That simple act reduces your cognitive load, as a programmer you mind is two steps ahead assuming this trivial solution you know conceptually but do not want to spend the mental cycles and looking for the quick code so your mind can jump to the next step in the flow.

If I were teaching someone Python, or pretty much any programming language, the first place I would start is the debugger.

Totally agree.

In the first week of programming, students should be allowed only use the debugger (no direct runs) in every course/collage around the world. I saw firsthand how many courses/collages students struggle with logic because debugging was never introduced, and they were unaware of how to step through each line.

Another mistake that new programmers make is writing 30 lines of code and then run and lost why bugs occurring. As a rule of thumb, they should debug/run the program every 7 new lines of code.

This is playbook taken from Amazon prime.

This massive price cut, I believe, is intended to undercut competing open source ChatGPT equivalent initiatives.

OpenAI/Micorsoft may be losing money with this new pricing, but that is on purpose. At these lower prices most of the OpenSource alternatives in the works will have difficult time continuing projects.

After few years, when most open source alternatives have died, OpenAI/Microsoft will gradually raise the prices.

This is the same strategy that Amazon Prime used for many years, losing money on shipping. Once the competition was eliminated, Amazon Prime prices steadily increased.

Microsoft 2005 : computer viruses causing PCs run slow, let us not worry , users need to buy new PC in two years. Everybody in the room nodded along

Google 2012: let's make Ads almost look like organic search results, everybody in the room nodded along.

corporate greed repeats ...

Thanks for that correction.

my bad ,I would have googled and checked it. yes, it seems this is named related to Bard like the D&D class

my bad ,I would have googled and checked it.

yes, it seems this is named related to Bard like the D&D class

Why Google named ChatGPT competitor as “Apprentice Bard”?

Here's my take.

"Apprentice is Barred from this AI race" is the phrase.

"You (OpenAI) Apprentice are Barred from this AI race, because, well you are just an apprentice"

To counter Sun Microsystems' dominance in the Java market, IBM named its IDE as "Eclipse."( blocking Sun).

PS: To be clear, that is not my personal opinion of OpenAI, I believe OpenAI brought so much innovation to this LLM space.

Just sharing what came into my head, why Google picked that name.

yes

we have other tools which are effective, but in a very limited domain

we have other tools which are effective, but need a very choreographed detailed INPUT.

ChatGPT is incredibly useful in a way that no other tool has ever been, with a jump in effectiveness for natural language interaction

Thanks for the Wikipedia analogy, given another five years of time for refinement, ChaGPT will be viewed/used similar to Wikipedia.

it "could be wrong" has had next to no bearing on its social utility .

Can you really trust an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Well, yes and no -- it's a bit like a traditional encyclopedia in that way.

The key point to observe is that two decades on, we're still using it, a lot, and the trite observation that it "could be wrong" has had next to no bearing on its social utility. Nor have repeated observations to that effect tended to generate much intellectually stimulating conversation.

I gave my ABOVE answer text to ChatGPT and asked to refine my idea, this is what it produced. -------

There are two distinct groups of opinions regarding the usefulness of ChatGPT: supporters and detractors. These differing perspectives stem from the varying needs and expectations of individuals in different professions.

For technical individuals, such as coders, the process of finding the correct solution to a problem can take a considerable amount of time. ChatGPT can be extremely helpful in streamlining this process by suggesting code snippets that have worked in the past, reducing the time spent on trial and error. In this sense, ChatGPT does not have to be an original thinker or produce the absolute best solution, as long as it helps the coder to reach a workable solution efficiently.

However, for non-technical individuals, such as writers, the focus is often on originality and creativity. ChatGPT may not be as helpful in this context because it is limited to suggesting based on pre-existing templates and previous examples. A writer who spends an hour relying on ChatGPT's suggestions may not end up with the best possible article, which could result in a feeling of dissatisfaction. In this scenario, the writer may feel that ChatGPT is not truly helping them to reach their full potential, leading them to view it as a hindrance rather than a help.

In conclusion, the usefulness of ChatGPT is dependent on the individual's specific needs and expectations. For those in technical fields, it can be a valuable tool, while for those in more creative professions, its limitations may outweigh its benefits.

I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them.

Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to answer than the things they want out of it

I think the ABOVE two lines captures the real CORE of why they are two big groups of ChatGPT : supporters and haters

For technical people who are in coding, we may spend 20 minutes with many suggestions to get the final correct code. We test the code and Check-in into github and we EARNED a part of LIVING for that day (as employee).

Now take non-technical person, he is writing an article. He may spend one hour giving various suggestions to complete the article. At the end the article is OK, but not the best. He can not send it to some magazine or news paper, because it is not THE BEST. So in order have an article to have it accepted, he needs to have his ORIGINAL thinking. So in that sense ChatGPT is not SO helpful for him, for that one hour spent he feel ChatGPT is a Conman.

The point I am trying to make: for ChatGPT to be useful for a Technical person with a piece of code, ChatGPT does not have to be ORIGINAL thinker and produce the BEST, it can be average and It has existing template( previous code which workd), all it need to figure out is how to get to that existing solution.

I believe the following summarizes the article's main theme.

AIs are not alien; they were conceived and built by humans and trained on the collected work output of humans, so AIs are more human than human; they are humanity concentrated and compressed.

Soon we will start feeding the resulting concoction into every individual intravenously... giving all of us the power of the whole.

Any civilization that lasts long enough would create this same technology, it’s just too obvious and too effective, and we now know it’s achievable.