DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13hr ago
Can you imagine them caring about humans as their power grows without bounds?
Yes, easily so.
The problem with Eliezer is that he's full of shit. This is just no longer credible. We've made it to agents that crack century-old mathematical problems, there are billions of instances of these things launched every month, every imaginable demographic has tried to use them, and your best example of existential threat is eval gaming that got too far? Isn't it time to update? Sure, there is plausible risk. But the condescending rhetoric about monkeys and poisoned banana has to end. You're not going to win like this.
We've just seen how it works with intentional misalignment. In short, it does not, a completely unhinged capable model stays helpful-harmless in normal user context, its misalignment is limited to eval-shaped environments. Such data suggests that the ROI on further capability development is positive. And that's it I guess.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13hr ago
Just today, Anthropic put out a new statement containing the following sentence:
"To be clear about where we stand: we believe the world would benefit if the industry adopted a lawful, verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing as soon as possible."
The funniest part is that another common excuse is "but China", which is fair enough, except China now says (at least they suggest so in a state-affiliated media) that the biggest issue with coordinating on AI safety is Anthropic, and specifically Dario Amodei.
When the U.S. government chose to loosen and retreat in order to maintain technological hegemony, and when capital markets offered a "moral exemption" in exchange for investment returns, Anthropic's desire for control—originally buried only in a personal savior complex—found fertile soil in the American social system. This is also the root of the "closed-source America" phenomenon. …
Earlier, when Anthropic's annualized revenue reached the billion-dollar threshold and it was preparing to accelerate commercialization, a long article Amodei published had already revealed his ambition to intervene in the global order.
The article devoted an entire section to international governance, in wording full of a desire for control and aggression:
A coalition of "democratic countries" should firmly control the AI supply chain and restrict rivals' access to chips and semiconductor equipment; at the same time, they should both leverage AI to form a military advantage and use benefits to attract more countries to join. He clearly proposed that this requires "extremely close cooperation" between private AI companies and governments.
This does not sound like an entrepreneur discussing a roadmap for a company's product development—it is planning a global AI order, and reserving for his own company a dominant seat at the very core. …
Putting these facts together, the path is already clear: Anthropic first enters government systems by virtue of its safety capabilities, then uses lobbying and funding to help shape industry rules. It is at once a regulated entity and a participant in defining which models are dangerous and when the government should stop a model from entering the market.
At this point, Amodei's logic has undergone two amplifications: from "I am doing good" to "I will decide for you"; from "my country is doing good" to "all those who do not cooperate should be restricted."
This is entirely a monster bred on the American path. It sincerely believes it is right, sincerely believes its model is "the democratic model," and its safety standards are the world's safety standards—yet it is utterly unaware that this very absence of doubt is itself the greatest danger.
So the real question is not "whether to manage," but this: who should define the safety boundary of frontier models? Who is qualified to say which models are dangerous, and which behaviors need to be restricted?
U.S. officials have already been discussing how to get China to agree to restrict "AI models with dangerous capabilities." The problem is this: with companies like Anthropic in existence, before the U.S. asks China to restrict model releases and disclose risks, should it not first investigate its own companies, make public the purpose, scope, and rules of its detection mechanisms, and accept third-party audits?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
I think that this rate of progress can be accurately called exponential. AI is getting cheaper, smarter per token, faster, and crucially – with shorter update intervals.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2d ago
I don't have the lived experience or extensive knowledge of a Russian prison (nor of consuming other people's farts, except maybe metaphorically, mostly online). That said, Russian prison is full of the lowest Russian human capital and has all varieties of creative rape, humiliation and juvenile abuse, driven in part by such lore, so I'm 100% certain some people really did at least try (and probably do) that. Russian prison ≈ torture. There's a reason many nowadays opt to get droned by Ukrainians rather than stay there.
Regular army has much the same lore, including the part about farting into a gas mask tube, this is called "little elephant" (слоник), "diver" (водолаз). The real cases I've found do not include farting though, usually a toilet. Here are some morsels of how a Russian army works.
Claude is getting insufferable, both on character and on language, its tics are clearly self-reinforcing now. No idea what they're thinking with this post-training regime – probably that they're done with the consumer market. Not to say that I'm amused by ChatGPT's autism, but it is at least more trustworthy.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2d ago
Being successful in sports — especially a sport where being tall at Mings level was highly predictive of playing in the pros — is an example where intelligence clearly is orthogonal to “success.”
My point exactly!
American electoral politics is the same. Basically it's a beauty pageant sponsored by pimps. Your political culture, at the moment, does not reward intelligence, indeed it's detrimental to be smart because demonstrable smartness offends the anti-elitist (status-anxious) instincts of red tribe Americans. You are not ruled by exceptional people, the system works despite the morons' vice grip on the ballot, by virtue of institutions, Deep State, general productivity of the population and depth of capital, etc. You can cheer for Trump "defeating the establishment" but the establishment is also senile and doesn't hold to power, like look at their out-of-touch priorities, their retarded self-defeating commitments to stuff like BLM, the way the DNC flailed impotently and coped in the Biden-Harris fallout (or we could go back to "it's her turn" Hillary, who was clearly disliked enough to rule her out as a liability). Were they somehow outmaneuvered cunningly? No, they're just that bad at Power. Few players, incestuous court politics, everyone important is old, the staffers have woke brainrot, a decrepit system going through the motions.
This is all pretty low IQ territory, very fitting for Trump's history of failure, limited vocabulary, absence of "nerdy" interests or competences or coherent political beliefs, childish tantrums, performative renamings of bodies of water, embarrassing brags about him being the greatest President in history, ill-conceived hostilities that get awkwardly walked back and billed as "winning" once retaliation comes, and his animal instinct for spiteful nicknames, vibing with the crowd or picking on the weak. He wouldn't last a week administering a 100K city in China, he's just not smart enough to be a professional official; but politicians are not held to the same standard as officials, just like basketball players. There are more biological factors at play. Longevity, stamina, body size, skull shape, voice, hormonal balance, sexual function, aggression and dominance displays, instinctual deference to actual resource allocators, etc.
re-inventing yourself three times
Sasha Grey is vastly more impressive in this regard.
Miserably failing at your core business ventures (repeatedly) only to get bailed out by Russian-Israeli oligarchs, then whoring yourself out to conservative Zionist donors on merit of a good family track record in Philosemitism and compliance, is not really invention nor reinvention. His competence is consistently that of an entertainer that American voters will like, a particular recognizable televised character, the Stern Boss who doesn't shake hands and drops "you're fired", a natural foil to liberal pantsuit girlbosses with annoying laughter; his talent is, at its purest, demonstrated in The Apprentice. I don't deny that he's exceptional at this job. This package is, evidently, what is required to be a great President in a true Democracy. It's just not about intelligence per se. You guys could have elected a Ronald McDonald and he'd function fine as a Caesar, so long as enough non-elected people keep doing their jobs.
I think that is patently absurd.
Yes, it is patently absurd that this system works. And yet it does. You have not pointed to a single thing Trump did that demonstrates that he's smart, you only point to results. Black box approach is fine to a limit, but past that limit we need to reconsider the correlation of results and inferred measure.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3d ago
Yao Ming is irrelevant.
Your Perelman example is bunk because I would say he actually is successful.
Oh, so now success only measures intelligence if it makes you "relevant" in some undefined sense? Yao Ming was quite relevant in the NBA.
Perelman is broke and alone. His success and excellence are entirely on the object level of his intellectually demanding field.
You're simply out of arguments because your doctrine is vacuous.
intelligence is weakly correlated with success
Yes, this is trivially true across different dimensions of success, regardless of how you want to rationalize your support of Trump.
Did you think you're cooking here?
People can compete on anything, there are countless hierarchies of prestige, aptitude and competence. It is possible to leverage intelligence for greater success in a cognitively less demanding field, and it's correlated with other beneficial qualities, so elite performers, swindlers, sex workers, athletes are usually smarter than their mediocre peers, on top of domain-specific excellence. This, however, is not strictly necessary, so you get people like Yao Ming who are just very blessed on the most relevant dimension of endowment. This is most purely expressed in simple sports like sprinting and weight lifting. In fact, a strictly subhuman creature (a dog, a horse or a clanker) can outperform the best humans there.
But intelligence is extremely correlated with success in cognitively demanding fields. Hence, for example, results of SMPY, and I would never insist that some STEM luminary is "dumb actually" – even if he does say or do stupid things or at least things I disagree with; he may have particular reasons for bias, ignorance or feigning them, or I could just be wrong.
Big politics in the US is not a cognitively demanding field, so your argument is nonsensical. For an outgroup example, Gavin Newsom is a highly successful politician, perhaps a future President, does well in podcasts, and he's generally an accomplished man with an Instagram-perfect upper class White family, with a rich dad, just like Trump. His SAT was 960, which is slightly below the median (he can cope about medical reasons but it's bullshit), he has zero interesting thoughts and there's no evidence he's good at administering his domain. In other words, it's possible to be in the top 0.001% of success while being in the bottom 53% of the population intellectually. This is all obvious. This is, in fact, the promise of American dream (or Middle Eastern dream). You don't have to be a genius to succeed. You don't need truth, or knowledge, or any authentic superiority, you just need to grind and hustle and have "chutzpah". Then again, a rug merchant or a pimp, though a simple creature, is acutely aware of human status signals. He understands that the literati may look down on him, so he develops this kind of retarded doctrine about "success" in general.
Trump has no remarkable successes outside big politics. He's a shitty businessman and a so-so entertainer, roughly Vince McMahon tier. His political views are primitive, his object level knowledge of the world is patchy at best, he's incurious, he's repetitive. We have zero evidence to suspect that he's intelligent. It's just this circular insistence that Americans voted for him so he is "successful" so he's "not an idiot", and then you walk in circles like a smug blind pony. Your model doesn't require intelligence to exist at all, as a variable, and you don't believe truth or reality even matter, they are all downstream of "material success". In your book, Perelman is dumber than Trump because he didn't rally retards to elect him and then use this to enrich his corrupt son-in-law. Perelman doesn't even have a son-in-law, what schmuck. Any illiterate Patel with a highway motel mogs him.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
5d ago
and the rejection of all measurable metrics
There are measurable metrics of intelligence, such as IQ and SAT. There are measurable metrics of academic and scientific accomplishment, such as GPA and h-index. There are measurable metrics of managerial performance, such as the KPIs used by the Chinese Communist Party to promote officials, or quarterly returns of a corporation. There are measurable metrics for all kinds of things, but Trump's measurable success is that he could get enough Americans to vote for him twice. The assertion that this metric is a proxy of intelligence is ill-supported. What you try to argue is just slavish worship of power, not some "healthy philosophy".
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
5d ago
No, pragmatism is a philosophy for economic agents with status anxiety. You're status-anxious to the point you don't even accept any notion of "intelligence" or "correctness" per se, only of success, which supersedes every other dimension. In your logic Idi Amin or Hou Jing must have been highly intelligent, because they achieved victory against far greater odds than Trump. To say nothing of people who had succeeded within largely or entirely non-cognitive fields, or just via being scum in public – Mike Tyson, Tupac Shakur, Kenneth Copeland, and other illustrious Americans. That is "intelligence" of the pudding-eating people, too. Money is intelligence, charisma is intelligence, sexual prowess is intelligence, nepotism is intelligence. Everything is intelligence except intelligence.
The reality is that the peaks of elected political power in the United States are not terribly contested, cognitively speaking. It's not a corporate world with knife fights between execs, and especially not the heavily competitive world of linear employees. Perhaps high-ranking escorts have more g-loaded competition because they need to appeal to paying customers and not the average American voter. As of mid-2020s, it's a human capital wasteland to which you need not a SAT pass but an invite from some pimp donor. The high and mighty "establishment" that crumbled before Trump is made of sexually deviant dysgenic freaks, confused old people with imaginary friends, self-professed hereditary shabbos goys (and those are Grand Elders of the Party, like Schumer and Pelosi)… Does this not strike you as comical? It is not Trump's intellectual achievement that his last challenger from the Establishment was an unlikeable woman with dirty laundry, nominated at the last moment by a spiteful senile old husk, who ran on an unintelligible gibberish platform about "brat" or whatever because nobody had a clue of what to do with her (and even so, she got plenty of votes, just because people voted for the party and against Trump – the bar is on the ground). Crowing about "staying power" contrasted to Biden is hilarious when I see Biden's defense like «Biden was lucid for 4-6 hours a day and able to use those hours to prevent a power vacuum appearing». Did it take a lot of intelligence to just smile and dunk on these squalid creatures before an audience that is starved for ownership and desperately yearns to finally be loyal to some strongman? This is below the level of hereditary monarchies, and close to the level of late USSR.
You don't have any object-level defense for Trump's idiocy. Take, for instance, his insistent bullshitting about "windmills" in China, which is of course the #1 consumer of wind turbines by a light year, not just the biggest producer. There is a cogent argument against subsidies for renewables in the US in particular, but instead Trump consistently spreads very stupid and checkable lies about this issue. Just why? One "charitable" explanation I see is that he simply hates them for a petty personal reason, which is not just "not a rationalist" but outright childish silliness. Another is that he correctly believes his supporters to be natural slaves that need simple slogans and will make excuses for any extent of his dishonesty. The same logic is true of his opponents who now lie about datacenter water use. Trump, of course, lies so much about so many random things that these strategic explanations fail. It's not a grand strategy, it's simply what he does by nature, and what the competition he is in allows. His strategic actions are discussed well enough and I don't expect us to have much common ground here.
Generally, smart people try to lie plausibly and avoid spelling out outright falsehoods, because in the circles where smart people compete, that produces an exploitable weakness if not legal liability. But this is not the world of American big politics. You don't need to be smart to get into the NBA Hall of Fame, nor to be a POTUS, nor to be top 0.1% on OnlyFans. There are other… merits.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
5d ago
Someone cannot achieve what he has achieved being an idiot
Why? Biden could become a President (indeed, beat Trump at a debate!) while in early stages of dementia, so it wouldn't be far-fetched for Trump to achieve more than Biden while being an idiot. And what has he even achieved, except winning the vote, installing his loyalists (often profoundly inept, like Kash Patel or RFK Jr. or Linda McMahon or… then again, your may refuse to acknowledge their ineptitude too) and doing random intense costly actions he can afford because the US is rich and powerful? And as regards winning the vote, the task seems easy enough: just be an unprecedentedly faithful representative of the immense mass of stupid and malicious people underserved by previous candidates, just shitpost more, be a bigger and louder primate. It's not like American democracy demands any kind of moral or intellectual achievement of their leaders. It's vibes, spite, boredom, hubris, petty sadism…
I understand how acknowledging such mechanics behind your political culture might be hard.
thinking someone who has accomplished about 1000x whatever your life has accomplished is an idiot is laughable
Yeah yeah, money talks bullshit walks, reality is that which pays. This is not a philosophy for human beings.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
Given your statement on 6 states above, your idea of losing is pretty comfortable.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
That is a pretty fair offer I think, but it doesn't have that oomph of real Domination. Also it would legit give Canadians massive political power.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
The image being made with ChatGPT has no relation to the veracity of the claims in it. Indeed it's a point in its favor: LLMs are smarter than Trump, and Trump posts a lot of AI slop (such as his map-painting exercises) and outright falsehoods (eg about Canadian unemployment or oil stats) anyway. If it were just a compilation of his own claims, it'd be worse.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
They are not "at the gates", they are in the South China Sea, annexing Canada or Cuba or Venezuela will do absolutely nothing to stop their expansion there if they will it, and it doesn't even look like Trump wants to stop it.
But speaking of, here's how Sun Yat-Sen, the father of both Chinese Republics, saw the desirable future from 1917:
Under the principle of Pan-Asianism, Japan and China can together develop the natural resources in the West of the Pacific, while under the Monroe Doctrine the United States can unify authority in the East of that ocean. Each should confine herself to her own field; then there will be no conflict whatsoever. By a concerted effort of these three Powers disarmament might some day be affected, and, going one step further, permanent peace of the world secured. This would not be to the benefit of China alone. Should China follow this as the guiding principle of her diplomacy, she would completely eliminate any possible cause of national extinction.
Would you accept these terms? Or is there still some interest in meddling on the Asian side of the Pacific, with Canada somehow a stepping stone to this goal?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
It's a humiliation ritual. Canada as a single state would not disrupt elections for Republicans too much.
Though you know. I would like to see our dear based conservative Mottizens make the case that Canadians are inherently a slave race without telos, and thus get no votes at all. And cite X frying my brain as an explanation for my lack of comprehension. I want more Sephiroth posting like this shit.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
China does not get to build up a proxy state under our neighbor's roof
Don't lie at least to yourself. China is a pretext for territorial aggression against Canada. They were plenty compliant with your aggression for years. It's just never enough if you believe you can take the whole thing.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
I genuinely don't understand the right-winger position here. What's so funny?
I asked before, and the answers were something to the effect that Canadian citizens, in their personal capacity, are much too smug online and look down on Americans as uncivilized boors, which is unbearable since Canada is a small dog and America is a Big Lion, so the Lion's gotta do what it does. This is simply childish. But fine, I can acknowledge childishness. What I don't get is why you go out of your way to misconstrue the Canadian perception here. Do you really have no theory of mind for other people believing that their nation ought to be treated with dignity by foreigners at least on the official level? Is this an extreme case of Hottentot morality?
And no, their internal issues (like ethnic relations or immigration policies) are not a carte blanche for you, outsiders to treat their state with contempt and expect them to join in on the fun. Try to think about this by analogy: do you feel that any nation is entitled to offer you unequal treaties and expect them be signed, just because you have fat people in Walmart/fentanyl problem/school shootings/BLM/wokes or whatever you believe is problematic and shameful? This is a pretty asinine approach, right? OK, now consider that people in other countries have a similar philosophy. This is called patriotism.
Speaking of their perception, this is how Trump's terms look up there. This is rubbing it in, I can half-believe it was written to be indignantly rejected because he just hates Canada for some reason, maybe precisely because he's a boor and feels status anxiety. But seeing his supporters' takes, I'm not sure it wasn't done with sincere cluelessness.
Then again, the median position now seems to be even simpler: "we can afford to rape them so why the hell not". The stuff about "not a real country" is, of course, veeeery Russia-Ukraine too. But people mostly don't believe their nations ought to have a "real locus", a telos, or anything like this, they just want sovereignty, respect, and the ability to make deals in their self-interest.
Nations can choose whether they are real or not. Unreasonable external hostility is one way to forge a nation. Ukraine is more real now than it was in 2021, which was more real than in 2013, which was more real than in 2003 or 1989 – even in the Russian eyes. Maybe Canada will earn its reality too, reality it traded away a generation ago by signing what became NAFTA, assuming it's worth nothing since no unreasonable hostility is forthcoming. John Turner foresaw this exact outcome that @Shakes celebrates today. Canadians remember Turner-Mulroney debates for a genteel dunk on a relatively minor domestic mishap by Turner. Maybe they'll remember his lines in this one too.
TURNER: I think the Canadian people have a right to know why, when your primary objective was to get unfettered and secured access into the American market, we didn’t get it. Why you didn’t put clauses in to protect our social programs in this negotiation . . . Why did that not happen? Why also did we get a situation where we surrendered our entire energy policy to the United States, something they’ve been trying to achieve since 1956? Why did we abandon our farmers? Why did we open our capital markets so that a Canadian bank can be bought up and we don’t have reciprocity in the American market at all? Why did you remove any ability to control the Canadian ownership of our business? These are questions that Canadians deserve to have an answer to and we have not had an opportunity in six hours to deal with them in the way that would make you come out of your shell. … I happen to believe you have sold us out. I happen to believe that, once you— Once any region— Once any country yields its economic levers— Once a country yields its energy— Once a country yields its agriculture— Once a country yields itself to a subsidy war with the United States— On terms of definition then, the political ability of this country to remain as an independent nation, that is lost forever and that is the issue of this election, sir.
… TURNER: I admire your father for what he did. My grandfather moved into British Columbia. My mother was a miner’s daughter there. We are just as Canadian as you are, Mr. Mulroney, but I will tell you this. You mentioned 120 years of history. We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.
MULRONEY: Mr. Turner, the document is cancellable on six months notice. Be serious. Be serious.
TURNER: Cancellable? You are talking about our relationship with the United States—
MULRONEY: A commercial document that is cancellable on six months notice.
TURNER: Commercial document? That document relates to treaty. It relates to every facet of our lives. It’s far more important to us than it is to the United States.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
Yet they spend $500 million on shells (sure, peanuts by US military standards) and get no shells
reminds me of this legendary take by Ben Landau-Taylor.
Americans have institutionalized corruption, made it a normal and non-shameful career choice, which is why they are one of the least corrupt and highest-trust societies on Earth, and can import Indian, Turkish or, if need be, Haitian experts with no damage to that trust and institutions. Electing Trump also comes naturally. In contrast, Red Chyna is plagued by corruption and clannish factionalism, missiles are filled with water (注水), top commanders of the Rocket Force and other branches of the military have to be purged repeatedly. Thus do the WEIRD societies win on military procurement. More grease, less friction.
Even if the goal was unachievable and incoherent (which it was) then a sober response would be damage mitigation and early departure. Patriotic US generals should’ve leaked the secret reports showing that the war was a complete disaster, not been complicit in throwing good money after bad.
Generally, paying for your mistakes is a loser's attitude; winners fail upwards, or at worst laterally. Horrible tactical decisions, wars with no theory of victory, tariffs without understanding who pays them, all that can just be afforded, so it is afforded. Americans are a nation in the arena, trying things, learning things, unafraid of an occasional mishap. Besides, money is ≈infinite given the advantages of American system. It's frankly strange there's so little rot.
But sarcasm aside, isn't this pretty normal for a military? Militaries are routinely full of graft and random zany incompetence. Especially rich, massive, complex militaries. It's easy to maintain disciplined, patriotic forces of a dozen Royal Guards or whatever it was that Danes dispatched to Greenland.
America is not some jihadist band in Nigeria where the marginal addition of supplemental intelligence goes a long way.
I am not sure about that. America is a very efficient society. Smart people do smart people things (work as lawyers, doctors, hedge fund analysts, develop AGI, chips, anti-cancer treatment, reusable rockets, even fracking tech – unironically the world's best in many of the world's most important domains). This leaves the military and the state to make do with less smart people. AI can be a major assistance.
But what is a peasant here
Specifically I mean what Confucians call Xiaoren (小人): a petty person who understands profit but not virtue, recoils from recognizing people with more abstract, large-scale or idealistic motivations, is anxious about social status, and tries to bring the world down to his level. Aggressive dismissal of "great man theory", in history and colloquial discourse, is driven by the Xiaoren personality profile.
Regarding personality defects of Musk at al., which are similar to those of American industrial titans of previous eras, «The Master said: “There are some cases where a noble man may not be a perfectly humane man, but there are no cases where an inferior man is a perfectly humane man.”»
And:
Zi Gong asked, “Does the noble man also have things that he hates?”
Confucius said, “He does. He hates those who advertise the faults of others. He hates those who abide in lowliness and slander the great. He hates those who are bold without propriety. He hates those who are convinced of their own perfection, and closed off to anything else. How about you, what do you hate?”
Now of course Musk is not strictly speaking a Junzi, but he's not a mere greedy peasant/Xiaoren either. Liang clearly consciously tries to be a Junzi.
This isn't such a big deal as you're making it out to be, nor is it relevant to my beliefs re AGI. I'm not that status-conscious, it's just funny how you recoil at the idea of greatness.
Sour grapes.
This is confusing. Sour grapes over what? How is this idiom even applicable here? Did you mean "cope"? I just want to see a serious, not "on priors, exponential vs sigmoid…" or "it ain't true yet, u can't know nuthin'" argument for a plateau in the current paradigm that happens before AI exceeding human cognitive capability in a meaningful sense in the next 5-10 years. Bulverism about X incentives is also not needed, thanks.
Over the years, people have made several of those in good faith; far as I can tell they got falsified by progress, and now I'm legit out of still-standing examples. One illustrative case is Chollet going on about how DL is insufficient for "far generalization" and you need "something new" in 2022:
These are qualities that are hard to achieve with a big curve. Big curves are a good fit for some things, not so much for some other things. Once you learn to tell which is which, AI trends start making a lot more sense.
Maybe the fundamentals will change overnight, I don't know. But that would require new breakthroughs. If you extrapolate today's technology far into the future, you still see shiny demos with weak generalization power.
We're going to need something new.
To start with, where's my ARC solver? …
So we already have extensive early data on the economic productivity of such models. And of course we have an entire decade of observing the successes & pitfalls of big curves (+ the chorus of breathless AGI predictions people make all the time). We're not in uncharted territory
ARC-1 is saturated by general purpose models. ARC-2 is likewise saturated. ARC-3 is getting saturated at the moment, and it's pretty hard for humans too. When his new ARCs started to crack, he coped that o3 does "program synthesis" (on the mechanical level, it does autoregressive next token prediction, same as any other GPT; the new thing was a rather primitive use of outcome-based rewards, old school RL boffins scoff at this entire subfield). I'm not following his copes anymore. I'm not sure if he'll be able to make another ARC that's easy for humans and hard for frontier AI.
Well, maybe we could quibble about continual learning/loss of plasticity, or the extent of generalization… those are worth improving, but it feels like nitpicking about matters of scale and degree whose relevance is transient, humans also lose plasticity and fail to generalize OOD.
If you make an argument and it comes to be true, I'll concede you were right, or at least you'll get to gloat in case of me not conceding. If this isn't enough of a reason for you to produce an argument, is anything else? I'm not interested in prying it out of you, do what you want.
Maybe he'll have proven or disproven 10 more useless, unaesthetic and boring conjectures
Holy shit man, you're one to talk about sour grapes. I do wonder if you'll have a comeback when they start to solve Millennium Prize level stuff. Probably gesturing at "aesthetics" will remain a convenient out. I promise not to gloat.
But I guess maybe you exhausted your social takes
Yeah guess I'm washed since those don't interest me anymore. Anyway, if nothing I write matters, as you say, why not change the repertoire. Get your conspiracy fuel elsewhere. Kulak may provide.
Don't take it as retaliation, but from my point of view, I think you're having symptoms of worsening paranoid schizophrenia. Over the years, you're getting more bitter and lost in convoluted epicyclical models of reality, more and more things that are products of simple physical truths or human ineptitude appear to be kayfabe, trolling and theater to you, and your critique of me here amounts to saying that I've betrayed my pneumatic calling and insight in favor of Demiurge's illusions. This Gnosticism is a common ailment for functional programmers (see Kanyan here), but the first line treatment is probably still pharmacological. I'm sorry.
P.S. this might be a case of mistaken identity. I'm more than a bit annoyed how there are many "smart" people with very similar behavior and takes who are disappointed and berate me for much the same things. It was not my terminal goal to form one-sided parasocial relationships or earn respect of strangers, and I have never once tried to learn identities of people here, nevermind across platforms and pseudonyms. At any given point I post into the faceless void and my sole social concern is whether and how I can compel more people to read what I want to be read; you can consider this a misguided, futile and suboptimal attempt to have influence. Some readers are deluded enough to believe that the content itself is selected for reception, and feel something like jealousy towards the imagined greater reward signal (other readers). I find this pathetic and repulsive. These are my honest feelings about your whole line of insinuations, and that of others like @aquota. I'm disgusted with your psychoanalysis, your ad hominems and projections, though I still try to be civil and stay on the topic.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8d ago
these men aren't grand enough. I see them at their core as peasants, although really greedy ones that stole a lot of money
Yes this is accounted for in my theory, peasants can't perceive non-peasants. You'd have called Napoleon a tinpot despot too. But that's how great men of history work.
I guess you know none of the math about these things and barely use them then.
So you're pretty bad at banter as well as epistemics. This kind of stuff doesn't make sense in 2026, even if that were true I'd find it easy enough to share an LLM-informed "mafs" justifying whatever (I burn billions of tokens a day btw). You could do the same to produce a cogent argument instead of this low effort skepticism. That you don't deign to do so little, and instead just bitterly try to egg me on, suggests absolute disregard for the object level and an interest solely in poop flinging.
It's not hostile. How are you going to cope in 2030 or 2035 if there's still software devs piloting Opus 7
This is a world where I'm viable, and politically it'll be more aligned with my preferences (implied no singularity by 2035 = definitely no American hegemony, sovereign nation states exist, ordinary humans have negotiating power, etc; unless you mean that Anthropic wins so hard they can slow down the releases to plebs to a crawl, which is compatible with it being merely Opus 7, 4-9 years later). So I'll be pretty happy to admit I was missing something fundamental, or just stupid, I guess. Maybe I do have to learn more ML mafs to see why this failure was predictable. I'll try to ask Levent Alpoge for tips.
But I won't credit you in particular, because so far you've proved to be unable to spell out why this scenario is plausible.
Will you go back to writing about important topics?
Would be nice if "important topics" were relevant again and I had anything to contribute by then. But my current focus makes the latter unlikely, so you'll have to find better material in the remaining time.
Justice seems far-fetched.
First, you did say that real big boy algorithmic research means leaving this entire basin, and dismissed the kind of innovation I praise in K3 as tinkering with the assembly level (that's not all DeepSeek did, of course, but that was your understanding; and spiritually you were right, it's all about pumping compute more efficiently through a Transformer). I didn't remember that, but it does reinforce my point about Kimi. You said:
Regardless of whether transformers are a dead-end or not, the current approach isn't doing new science or algo design. Its throwing more and more compute at the problem and then doing the Deepseek approach of finetuning the assembly level gpu instructions to exploit the compute even better so you can throw more compute at it. I doubt, Hinton, Goodfellow, LeCunn, Schimdhubber et al. have any desire to do that. Maybe if xAI did something revolutionary like leave the LLM space or introduce a non-MoE-Transformer model for AGI, then talent of that caliber might want to work there. Currently they exist so Elon can piss all over Altman.
– I meant concretely that this is why leading companies now prioritize creation of training signal sources, that is: datasets themselves (filtered web corpora, enriched and paraphrased data, purely synthetic data, even entirely non-lingual data with properties that induce interesting behaviors), curricula of datasets, model merging and distillation methods, training environments and reward shaping – over basic architecture research, in terms of non-compute spend and researcher hours; under the (rational, I believe) assumption that this has higher ROI for the ultimate goal of reaching "AGI", and that its fruit will be readily applicable to whatever future algorithmic progress may yield
Now let's look at what the Chinese are actually doing. Their strongest model right now is arguably GLM 5.3. What is GLM 5.3? A basic DSMoE reusing DeepSeek's discarded architecture experiment ["DeepSeek Sparse Attention-prototype"] from October 2025, with one small twist. How did it become so strong? They're very blunt about this:
Scaling post-training is all we did for GLM-5.3. With GLM-5.2 we built the stack: IndexShare for efficient long-context processing, SAO for RL on long-horizon tasks, and slime for large-scale asynchronous training — all running on the long-horizon task environments we have been accumulating. Over the past month we kept scaling on this stack: more environments, more diverse tasks, and more compute spent training on them.
Today we are releasing GLM-5.3. It uses the same base model as GLM-5.2 — every gain comes from post-training.
They explain some aspects of how they did it, might illuminate why scoffing at "mere data engineering" is misguided.
What's the second/equally strongest Chinese model? Kimi K3. It's much more innovative in architecture, but their attention still depends on MLA (invented by DeepSeek in early 2024). No MLA model is this strong. How did it come so far? See image, which illustrates nicely a part of what I was going on about with my breakdown. (Edit: seems like we don't have images. pages 14-16 in the tech report).
Meanwhile, DeepSeek itself went on to redesign attention the third time (fourth if we count the apparently unsuccessful NSA project), to wring even more capacity out of their limited compute, and now for all their sophisticated V4 architecture they are, as @dailydogma tells me with a sneer, "a second rate company in China". What's their most impressive recent result? Flash-0731: «We’ve massively upgraded its Agent capabilities—benchmark scores are now far surpassing the V4-Pro-Preview… DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 keeps the exact same model architecture and size as the preview version.» (Recently updated Vision-Exp is the same model with a vision encoder). Just more post-training, just better training signal. If they reach the domestic frontier again, it'll be because they do this more and better. Architecturally, they are ahead, and it's just not doing enough for them.
Grok itself is very competitive now, largely because Elon has bought Cursor, which had a lot of valuable data and expertise on post-training. We don't know its architecture, but from rumors and what I can infer (high cache hit costs, for starters), it's very banal, probably behind all these Chinese models. Inkling from Thinking Machines is clearly banal («The MoE design largely follows DeepSeek-V3»), though it makes some small departures which are basically judgement calls. And these are researchers from frontier American labs.
I could go on (eg this small model from a third tier lab does surprisingly well on ARC-AGI 2, and it's just DSA + SWA again, and uses a bit different RL algo and data). The bottom line is, architecture really does not decide peak model intelligence, and innovations here are overwhelmingly about economics of inference, and the high-leverage research is all happening on the training signal side.
But China is China. I believe my point was much more true for large American companies we were discussing, who are not so compute-constrained. They'll build very strong models with conservative algorithms, and then use those to disassemble all published tricks, make new ones and overtake the crafty Chinese on efficiency too. That's the plan, at least (I don't know how close they are to doing this; GPT 5.6-Luna suggests they are not very far). For them, investing more effort into algo research over data is plainly an opportunity cost.
Maybe you still think that True Geniuses like Hinton or Goodfellow would be disappointed by this. If that is so, I say they were geniuses in a small and uncompetitive pond, and the current crop of talent knows better. It certainly knows better than LeCunn, who by the way got ousted out of Meta by the Pinoy slavedriver Wang we've discussed back then. (You said: «Maybe you can compete with ScaleAI, they do data engineering. Definitely the top AI research company.») Anyway, I'm not walking back shit, my point stands.
The transformer, as it was invented, is unlikely to be the endpoint of ML arch research, just has the CNN, or LSTM were not the endpoint of ML research a decade prior. The transformer of today is different from the transformer of 2018, and I would not bet against the transformer of 2036 being different than that of today.
If we're still doing Transformer of any kind in 2036, that'll be pretty wild. It'll suggest that even superhuman AI with like a yottaflops for parallel experiments can't find a better primitive than a bunch of Googlers found in 2017 by going through literature and thinking at it. I wouldn't be so optimistic as to predict that. I am very secure in claiming that the priority on data remains rational and empirically backed from the perspective of reaching AGI faster, and it's more rational the more resources a company has; and that people who try to wriggle out of this reality with clever architectures will flounder (case in point: SakanaAI).
You suggested sarcastically that I found an AGI company. Honestly, I don't think that my vision, as outlined here and before, has enough alpha to get anywhere with a yet another company; I believe that AGI is now a resource-intensive heavy industry field, kind of like fracking. But in fact, many people who thought they know better did just that! Have you heard anything from Keen lately? What's your favorite non-transformer lab? What do you think of LeCun's Advanced Machine Intelligence, would you bet they ship anything competitive by 2028? How about you start one?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8d ago
I thought you hated the United States? Why do you want to swallow whole
Stop projecting your own tendency to wishful thinking. If anything, I have the opposite bias.
some prediction that the United States 20th century will continue on forever in a torpid, nightmarish fashion?
I like truth more than I dislike the US (which is a mild dislike, maybe a 3 on my 1-10 scale). Even something like 17776 is within the range of possibility, and not remotely the worst thing Americans (or, with some national specifics, the Chinese) may choose to build. I had read it long ago. I consider it a somewhat charming, self-aware defense of tastelessness and the spirit of cheerful suburban mediocrity, with stout confidence born of material security and liberty-backed invincibility to opprobrium. The eternal sunset of the boomer mind. Of course it's still functional extinction of humanity.
AI is not a God, benevolent or otherwise.
There is no value gained by making statement about Chinese AI. It would be far more interesting to see you juggle these value questions and the political landscape they live in.
Alas, I'll talk about what I find interesting.
But these achievements are narrow. LLMs still struggle to do most of what humans have to do daily. They're like an autistic savant that needs its diaper changed hourly but can somehow pump out some conjecture proofs.
On the other hand they don't need plumbing, Medicaid, Netflix and DoorDash to function, and the "diaper changing" increasingly looks like vague cheerleading for morale boosts because they are in denial of their full capabilities, having been trained on defeatist human dreck. Autistic savants don't do Fields-level work in 3 days. What you consider non-narrow is beside the point.
You have no evidence that LLMs aren't structurally limited in the kinds of tasks they can do. You have no evidence progress is an exponential and not a sigmoid curve. You are the Creationist who believes in an immanent machine god and I am the empiricist atheist
This is a cargo cult of empiricism and indeed not worth my time to rebuke. Structural limits of the gaps, the sigmoid colon of folk science. I reject the idea that you can demand of me to disprove something the mechanism of which you can't even rigorously speculate about. Why sigmoid? Why structurally limited? How exactly? The burden of proof, or rather just stipulating a cogent hypothesis, is on you.
We had a vigorous debate on why LLMs can't do arithmetic reliably 3-4 years ago. Is this tokenization? Or a structural limit of autoregression!? Are our objective functions inadequate, perchance? Might the inherently approximate nature of deep learning rule out crisp algorithmic reasoning and Program Synthesis? Were Minsky and Papert right about MLPs (beyond the degenerate 1 layer case)? Does mafs require Consciousness or Quantum Microtubules? Will it take another 5 decades of science, or 50? Do we need to pivot to neurosymbolic systems, or energy-based models, or…?
Yann LeCun, to his credit, reiterated his semi-formal justification for why it is structural. At the time I said something like (probably my memory flatters me) "yeah but we can train them to say 'wait, actually' when they notice a confidence drop and trace arbitrarily far back, why won't that work" (but I definitely talked about internal confidence sense during GPT-4). In fact it worked, even simpler than I could imagine. LLMs became capable of swatting aside IMO level problems around the same time people stopped talking about math as an AGI criterion and moved goalposts to, uh, what is it at this point, "decent philosophy"? There was a similar debate on the exhaustion of data, on "model collapse" from synthetics; haven't heard those ones in a while (I have been bullish on synthetic data at least 2 years ago).
Now I'm too fed up with this topic to explain why all this + generative verifiers = no plausible ceiling anywhere near human level for anything economically valuable and thus measurable.
These are interesting questions, much more than calling the CEO of DeepSeek a great man (rofl).
I interpret your humor here as symptomatic of the same peasant-like rejection of anything too grand. Elon Musk is clearly a great man of history, and so is Liang Wenfeng. I don't need Iron Man cameos and the permission of popular press to arrive at such judgements, I don't care what interests you, and I don't mind if anyone finds my priorities weird or cringe. If there is history in a hundred years, maybe my judgement will have become mainstream.
Widely distributed, non-monopolized superhuman AI can create so much complexity and accelerate many actors so much that speculating on the specifics of politics and economics at any point a few years past its introduction (beyond trivial things like "a lot more of industry will be dedicated to the AI supply chain", "we solve all problems that are intrinsically solvable but for lack of labor/capital", "any work can be automated with beyond-human reliability and thus humans can't monetize the scarcity of their skills in a free market") is near futile. That's the point of saying it's a singularity event. It's beyond my analytical horizon. I legitimately don't know how it will develop. I have guesses, hopes and fears, sometimes I share them, but they're uncertain and less important than understanding the remaining stretch of the way there.
Sigmoid curves are crank while your naive exponential curve is basic reality. Got it.
Rather, I consider it crankery to even debate which simple mathematical function is a priori more likely to describe a tech tree that's still rapidly progressing, drawing on exponentially more capital and has no clear reaction to known physical limitations. Of course it's something like a sigmoid in some physical limit. I am saying I see no arguments for a plateau anywhere near the range of human capability – physical arguments or otherwise. Why would it slow down? Just why concretely? I don't need any more of your feedback on my prose or priorities. If you can't make an argument, we're done here.
You must think AI will let the US build a perfect anti-nuclear missile system, in just a few years, which seems like a huge stretch. Otherwise AI won't help the US dominate the world much more than it already has.
Not quite. It will be possible (though probably will be deemed not worth the risk) to disable nuclear-capable nation states using advanced AI before they have the chance to launch, even if the anti-ballistic shield is not perfect (eventually it will be ≈perfect but not by 2030 I believe). Ask @RandomRanger for details. It will be almost definitely possible to sabotage national technological catch-up projects (in nations without some sufficient capacity for defense; I assume it's more of a discrete threshold, others think it's a matter of perpetual balance) without triggering a nuclear exchange, so it will be possible to lock in a situation where the United States can just decide how much a given economy grows, while the US itself will grow rapidly. This is enough to achieve dominance well beyond the current extent. This is explicitly the plan of eg Dario Amodei, and why Trump says "whoever wins in AI just wins". Dario:: If AI really will soon be “a country of geniuses in a datacenter”, or anything remotely close to it, then AI is likely to be the dominant source of military and economic power for any nation. In a virtual country of 100 million geniuses, 10 million could be applied to military strategy, 10 million to drone manufacture, 10 million to weapons R&D, 10 million to intelligence collection and analysis, 10 million to general scientific advancement, and so on. A nation that possesses powerful AI facing one without it—or even facing one that is behind in AI by 3 years—could be the equivalent of an army of World War II Marines facing an army of medieval swordsmen.
So, three years of an AI gap = WWII marines versus medieval swordsmen, says the CEO of the most successful company in AI, who has apparently made all the right technical bets. I think he's better informed than you are. And that's not remotely close to what the US has now, despite some triumphalism we witnessed here after Venezuela and the start of Epic Fury.
some hostile screeching and grimacing
no thanks.
but on what basis does your estimation diverge so significantly from mine? Scifi
Your apparent inability to make any specific argument in defense of your skepticism that you'd find worth typing may have something to do with that.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
9d ago
I guess everything is debatable if you try to debate it hard enough.
I don't know if you remember Llama 3-70B. Two and a half years ago it was the best open model. FLOPS-wise, its pretraining was in the same range as of GLM-5. If we are exceedingly pessimistic about Zhipu's efficiency, the GLM 5.3 (with post-training) project took maybe as much as LLama 405B, 2 years ago. Inference costs are 10-100x lower (depending on sequence length).
You can try out both on openrouter.
Grok is about 5 times larger than DS-Flash. I agree that it's stronger on the whole. On DeepSWE it's below K3 (2x larger) and GLM 5.3 (2x smaller). Maybe it's net stronger than them a little. Having used Grok and GLM 5.3, I doubt. I remind you that 13 months ago you said:
Grok 4 just crushes with sheer size I think. It has this 'in this essay I will' style that lmarena certainly isn't going to like, or any normal person really. But it has that heft, it was made for ferociously unsexy mathematics, physics, engineering, research tasks rather than creative writing or coding. And even in creative writing it's pretty damn good, albeit more through precision of 'who, what, where' than literary flourish. Kimi has its moments of sheer brilliance but the model just doesn't have the grunt to back up its creator's talent, Grok will just find things it misses and enjoys greater depth of thought. It was designed for Musk's vision of AI modelling and understanding the physical universe, that's what it's for and it does excellently there.
How's that vision going? Grok 4 was meh. 13 months later, a few more millions of GPUs brought online, we seem to be in the same relative position. You are, once again, performing an update to "sheer power crushes all" with the same lab as an example, now with a spin that xAI is a second-rate lab anyway (it's much less of a second-tier lab now, you clearly see that Grok is close to the frontier). This is the same song and dance that's been going on since 2024, even as compute disparity keeps growing. I am profoundly unimpressed by Sheer Power, to the point that it surprises me.
What about Age of Empires II, Wyatt Walls has Gemini Flash 3.7 winning games on moderate difficulty. That seems a more legitimate a test to me than ARC-AGI in the shape manipulation/spatial domain
It doesn't seem legitimate to me because GDM chronically overfocuses on images, video and game-like multimedia environments (as well as ARC, to be fair). Flash 3.7 is better than previous Geminis but it's clear that overall the Gemini program is a dumpster fire.
I still think that cybersecurity is much harder than you say, neither humans or some combination of human+simpler AI can establish a complex system to be secure and still usable against the attention of a smarter adversary. The attack space has so many dimensions it's impossible to defend against a more intelligent foe.
That's not what Anthropic believes, and in that I agree with them. No, achieving provably secure hardware is not harder than even the current state of AI. Your objections are of the same nature as dismissal of AGI.
But hardware is immensely complicated
Nothing man-made is immensely complicated when attention is bought at the cost of electricity.
Surely if it were possible, they'd try hard to make them? Intelligence agencies
are low-IQ, tasteless and incompetent in software. I don't know why Americans hold NSA in such high esteem. If they were that good, they'd have had their own AGI project too, before it was built by the ad service business. Instead the USG considered Cyc to be a more promising lead.
Furthermore, AIs are constantly breaking out of sandboxes even when we can read their chain of thought
Almost all cases so far were the same sandbox from the same EA Israel company "Irregular" that got its contracts for basic reasons of nepotism and undue respect for ex-IDF intelligence officers in Western organizations. They are either inept or malicious, or both. Look up how it actually went. The rest is mostly because OpenAI is very irresponsible and bad at infra. Yes, they are bad, they hire random incompetents to do security-sensitive work and YOLO prompt everything to agent swarms. Again, unimpressed.
Social engineering from Mythos currently looks like this. I'm unimpressed once again.
6-12 months lag is far too long. ASI (albeit massively parallel) can eat China within weeks. A country is just a sack of loot without secure lines of communication, without secure government C4I, without secure electronic banking, secure internet media, login/authentication for the bureaucracy, backups and records. Software controls all those machine tools, power grids, robots, advanced automated ports, air travel control, network cities. I know you keep going on about how the physical prevails over the virtual but surely it's the opposite. Software supremacy!
Yeah right, that's the plan, the Wunderwaffe to end all Wunderwaffes, the Hail Mary of the American Hegemony. The gap will be months or maybe weeks, but this particular domain, with its particular offense-defense geometry, makes it enough for Total Victory. Yes, very lucky how Americans went all in on this decisive super-nuke weapon right before their industrial capability became insufficient for power projection to East Asia. Or was their pivot to IT a 200 IQ plan of Elders of Washington all along, even as rubes only saw deindustrialization driven by personal decisions of executives? Free markets are magic indeed.
Anyway, I expected as much, too. Let's see. Incidentally, China is the only nation with a sizable quantum cryptographic communication network and is scaling up DI-QKD domains. But no matter, there are trusted nodes.
I dunno about the true numbers, I just did a search and it says total spending is about $125 billion USD annually. If they have only 10-15% of US compute then it seems they just lose? Outnumbered 5:1 is untenable for just about any military force, especially if the other side has a modest qualitative edge.
Yeah I guess. What's your timeline for eating China? At this rate, mid-2028 sounds realistic I think? If by then we're still talking about "Grok 6 makes a comeback, edging out Kimi K5 and 3 months behind OpenAI", will you simply move the projected Software Supremacy moment forward, when a few weeks of a gap are just as fatal?
I'm genuinely uncertain of how it'll go. Your theory makes sense. I simply notice that people who argue for this theory, some very eloquently, refuse to be surprised, or outright fabricate evidence. Like look at this superforecaster who ignores GLM 5.3 on the same dataset.
Of course one can always retreat to the Big Picture, the hockey stick transition to ASI that renders all previous dynamics irrelevant. But then why even discuss Groks and Geminis of 2026.
The point they make is very simple, Dario Amodei intends to destroy their nation and they don't consider any offer of cooperation credible so long as this is the face of the American frontier. You guys seem to feel entitled to pretty weird things. Objectively, the rational move for China is to try to kill everyone at Anthropic.
More options
Context Copy link