HN user
Then they should give grants of tokens to famous mathematicians.
EDIT: oh, they do offer grants of $1000 of API credits to researchers https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10139500-researcher-acce...
free and low-end eventually wins
Apple, the world's second most valuable company, seems like a counterexample.
I can see two reasons American companies might want to train models they give away for free:
1) They sell compute: chips (Nvidia), data centers (AWS, Microsoft, Google, SpaceX, etc), or even end-user device manufacturers like Apple (e.x. M7 rumored to have 1.5TB of unified memory). If Jevon's paradox holds, then cheaper (or free) models means more demand. But compute is likely supply-constrained for years anyway.
2) Their product isn't AI but depends on AI being cheap, or they don't want competitors to capture that value, i.e. "commoditize your complement" https://gwern.net/complement
It probably doesn't make sense for these companies to invest a lot of money training models that will be obsolete in a few months anyway. When progress starts to plateau I'd expect more companies to start training models they give away for free.
Yes, that’s what the parent comment meant by “there is going to be a ton of new float fairly soon”
I provided my definition and argument. I can't engage further if you don't refute any of it.
Crucially it's the responsibility of those who are making the claim here to bring evidence and definitions
Ok, I claim that if something draws reasonable conclusions to questions it hasn't previously seen by performing steps that look like reasoning, then it is reasoning.
If you disagree then please define reasoning.
Isn't "reasoning" in LLMs just training it to have an internal monologue to think through problems like a human would? i.e. extra tokens.
You wouldn’t even take social security benefits despite (I assume) having been forced to pay social security taxes?
Even Ayn Rand took social security benefits. Some people point to that as hypocrisy, but I feel if the government forced you to pay into a program it is moral to take back from it (though not more than you contributed), even if you morally object to the program overall.
“Most programs are important to somebody for good reasons“
It’s essentially self-evident that someone receiving money or benefits paid for by others considers those benefits to be “important.”
Junkyard? Starlink satellites are deorbited at the end of their lifespan.
Who did Starlink cut off? Russia, which is legally sanctioned and illegal for US companies to do business with?
You’d probably feel differently if you were one of the 10 million (and growing) Starlink subscribers who previously had worse (or no) high speed internet access.
perhaps will miss the most important discoveries of the universe because of such programs
Unlikely for a number of reasons, and actually a large commercial constellation could help with scientific discovery.
Satellite trajectories are predictable from published ephemerides. It’s trivial for telescope operators to exclude the small fraction of pixels in a frame occupied by a satellite. They already do this.
Satellite operators are also careful not to transmit towards radio quiet zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_quiet_zone
Furthermore, the same technology that makes it economical to put millions of satellites into LEO (e.g. Starship) also makes it cheaper to build larger telescopes in space where they’re unaffected by the earth’s atmosphere (and satellites in LEO).
Wow so much to unpack here.
If SpaceX spent a ton of resources developing Moon and Mars base plane they’d be criticized for not focusing on the launch vehicle. The railroad company also doesn’t necessarily need to be the ones building the towns.
Starship has experienced setbacks but isn’t a “massive failure” by any measure.
won’t be
Again, “What I find silly is the certainty that critics have that SpaceX will fail”.
I doubt you’ve done enough investigation to conclude that. Watching a couple a YouTube videos about how data centers in space are dumb doesn’t count.
For one, it’s not one big hundred megawatt-scale datacenter, but many smaller rack-sized satellites.
Two, there are many trade offs SpaceX can make to reduce the overall cost. The radiated power is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature, so anything they can do to increase the temperature drastically reduces the size of the radiators, including custom silicon, heat pumps, etc. There’s also novel radiator technology like liquid droplet radiators that could be worth developing.
Third, there are reasons to put it in space: solar panel efficiency, no cost for land, less regulation, no NIMBYs, etc.
I’m confident you could devise a way to ensure the verifying party doesn’t know which website requested the verification, and vice versa. I’ll have to think about it a bit more.
In general I'm opposed to this kind of regulation, but as a thought exercise, we do have the primitives needed to do age (or any other attribute) verification in a privacy-preserving and decentralized way.
You could imagine a hierarchy of organizations (governments, financial institutions, schools, etc) that a website trusts to verify some attribute (minimum age, citizenship, etc). Those organizations can attest that some identifier like an email address has been verified to belong to a real individual with that attribute, and that organization belongs to the hierarchy the website trusts, without revealing anything else about the user, the exact verifying organization, or the requesting website.
Honestly a little surprised the ticker wasn’t $XXX
SpaceX is critical to national security and NASA. A new administration isn’t going to change that.
Pretty much everything has a boot sequence of some kind, it just might be very quick.
It would be great for kids who you don’t want to give a phone to. I got something similar for my young kids and they love it.
But also there doesn’t always need to be a “why” beyond it being fun for the creator to create.
If the price moves down when a Starship test flight doesn't achieve all objectives that's probably a good opportunity to buy. Many people think "rocket go boom, must be bad" but to some extent it's expected during the development phase. They get more useful data about where the limits are when it doesn't work.
Of course there's limits to that, but SpaceX has a lot of cash to absorb failures, unlike in the early days.
What's that theory? Who are the "people getting out after the forced buying"? People who bought assuming there would be an increase in price due to forced buying?
No insiders have been able to sell yet, and won't for another couple months.
Elon and some major early investors are locked up for a whole year.
The $2T valuation definitely depends on Starship working well. Orbital data centers have no chance of being profitable otherwise.
What's your point? If people were skeptical of Facebook even if it was profitable then it reinforces the grandparent comment's point.
250M people take it as an anti-parasitic, as they should.
Oh we're still doing the "horse dewormer" thing despite 250 million humans taking it each year?
Maybe it's not a coincidence an AI company is building this thing...
every human body is a bit weird and there will almost always be something "wrong" that will be visible in a full body scan
Would this be solved by routine scans, so you have a baseline you can compare against? Ignore anything slightly odd in the first scan but monitor for changes over time?