This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To continue the drama around the stunning Chinese DeepSeek-r1 accomplishment, the ScaleAI CEO claims DeepSeek is being coy about their 50,000 H100 GPUs.
I realize now that DeepSeek is pretty much the perfect Chinese game theory move: let the US believe a small AI lab full of cunning Chinese matched OpenAI, with a tiny fraction of the compute budget, with no ability to get SOTA GPUs. Let the US believe the export regime works, but that it doesn't matter, because Chinese brilliance is superior, demoralizing efforts to strengthen it. Additionally, it would make the US skeptical of big investment in OpenAI capital infrastructure because there's no moat.
Is it true? I have no idea. I'm not really qualified to do the analysis on the DeepSeek results to confirm it's really the run of a small scrappy team on a shoestring budget end-to-end. Also what we don't see are the potentially 100-1000 other labs (or previous iterations) that have tried and failed.
The results we have now are that -r1 b14 and b32 are fairly capable on commodity hardware, and it seems one could potentially run the 671b model which is kinda maybe but not actually on par with o1 on a something that costs as much as a tinybox ($15k). That's a remarkable achievement, but at what total development cost? $5 million in compute + 100 Chinese worth of researchers would be stunningly impressive. But if the true cost is actually a few more OOMs, it would mean the script has not been completely flipped.
I maintain that a lot of OpenAI's current position is derivative of a period of time where they published their research. You even have Andrej Karpathy teaching you in a lecture series how to build GPT from scratch on YouTube, and he walks you through the series of papers that led to it. It's not a surprise that competitors can catch up quickly if they know what's possible and what the target is. Given that they're more like ClosedAI these days, would any novel breakthroughs be as easy to catch up on? They've certainly got room to explore them with a $500b commitment to play with.
Anyway, do you believe DeepSeek?
Alex Wang is an opportunistic psychopath who's afraid of his whole Pinoy-based data generation business model going bust in the era of synthetic chains of thought. Therefore he's dishonestly paraphrasing Dylan Patel (himself a China hawk peddling rationales for more export controls) who had said “they have 50000 Hoppers” once, without evidence. But the most likely Hopper model they have is H20, an effectively inference-only chip, that has negligible effect on pretraining costs and scale for V3 and R1.
Yes I do believe DeepSeek. This is not really a political issue but a purely technical. Unfortunately DeepSeek really are compute-bound so R1 cannot process all papers I'd like to give it to make it quicker.
The political narrative does not even work, it's purely midwit-oriented, nobody in the industry imagines leading labs can be deceived with some trickery of this kind.
Inference costs are wholly addressed by Hyperbolic Labs (US) and some others already serving it for cheaper.
It's superior to o1 as a reasoner and a thinker. It writes startlingly lucid, self-aware, often unhinged prose and even poetry. It can push back. It is beyond any LLM I have seen including Sonnet and Opus. This becomes obvious after minutes of serious interaction. It just has less polish as a product because they haven't been milking the world for interaction data since 2019. They have 0.8-1.5 M quality samples for instruction finetuning. OpenAI had accumulated tens of millions if not hundreds.
For me it's something of an emotional issue. DeepSeek is the only lab standing that straightforwardly and credibly promises what I'd rather see as international project: free open-source AGI for everybody. I've been monitoring their rise for well over a year, reading every paper and even their blogposts in Chinese. Nothing that they claim is inconsistent, indeed it's all been predictable since 2023, all part of a very methodical, flawless, truly peak quant fund (that's their capital source and origins) execution towards the holy grail, “answering the ultimate question with longtermism”, as they put it. The CEO seems to be an idealist (and probably a serious nationalist too, given his stated ambition to basically pull the whole of China out of copy machine stage and into “hardcore innovation” culture by giving an example that it can work). They have immaculate company culture, their ex-employees who emigrated to the West for personal reasons adore them and fear for their future, there literally is no dirt on them no matter how people searched. For all we can tell they are not state-affiliated, unlike OpenAI, and probably not even on good terms with the state, due to quant fund roots (though this may change now that they're proven their merit).
This is not a Sputnik moment for the US. The US has a secure and increasing lead due to bog standard logistics and capital advantage, as always. What this should be is “are we the baddies?” moment.
Also, it's a moment to ask oneself how high are margins on Western model providers, and whether it's a true free market. Because Liang Wenfeng himself does NOT think they're that far ahead in efficiency, if they are ahead at all.
In the end X.com HBD stans overcorrected on the ‘population differences aren’t just for IQ, they also explain why Chinese etc inherently aren’t as creative / innovative’ front, which was extreme cope from day one. They were always capable, they just needed to borrow the Silicon Valley move fast and break things culture in addition to the technical foundation.
Now we can see that 1.5 billion people with an IQ 105 average is entirely capable of competing with a population of 300 million with a 100 average + some smart Jews, Europeans, Chinese emigrants and 4 sigma third worlders.
In the end, and this isn’t just because I mostly like the Chinese, I truly think this makes a major war less likely and therefore means those of us living in major Western (and Chinese) cities are more likely to keep on living.
The Chinese may be smart but they're uninspired robots was always finest grade copium. It turns out that in the end whites as a race are certifiably mid and they don't take the news of this very well.
EDIT: I protest this ban. I sincerely mean what I say here and don't think calling whites mid as a race is even an insult, it would only be perceived as such by someone who puts particular pride in the race they were born into by chance. Had I said blacks as a race are mid nobody would have raised even a peep (and fwiw, my opinion of whites is higher than my opinion of blacks).
I'm not joking or trolling here. Seriously considering decamping off to Twitter at this moment (would have been Bluesky because I think the algorithm there is better, but alas, like for lots of other things, the worst thing about Bsky is the people there).
Also:
Really proving the point of my statement with that ban.
Mid by what metric, pray tell?
Intelligence, creativity, humour, how good they look after age 30, you name it etc. etc.
True creativity comes through working with constraints imposed like China (be it sanctions or cost pressure or whatever). Unconstrained problems are often underdetermined which means every midwit can find their own "unique" solution which then lets them pretend they are special.
In case you're banned, I suppose you can't reply to this. But I will have to disagree that whites are mid.
Most of the giants of humanity (Einstein, Tesla, Hawking, any "great person") were white. This is a good marker of intelligence. Asians are better at rote memorization, but that is a very bad marker of higher intelligence, and it's mostly a result of spending 40% more hours studying on average.
I will have to disagree with creativity too when it means "originality" due to the collectivist nature of Asia. If you mean "artistic skills" however, I will have to agree with you, asians win.
Working with constraints results in creativity for everyone. There's a reason why writers block mostly occur as a result of a blank page. This is how the human mind works, and it's merely a coincidence that the Chinese are more restrained at the moment.
As for "How good the look after age 30", I mostly agree, but it doesn't seem very related to other metrics.
Classifying Einstein as white is somewhat controversial (at least around these sorts of places)
I see, I just went by skincolor. If possible, I don't want to overcomplicate things by taking "jews are in a super-position of white and non-white, collapsing to the state which benefits them the most at any given time" seriously. Genetically they might be a little different, though, I'm even open to the idea that jews are objectively superior in some sense (e.g. often intelligent), but I think they're also inferior in others. The use of deception is an indicator that one has difficulties competing fairly, after all.
Despite being white I don't care that much if another race is "superior" though, the only hill I'm willing to die on is that "mid" is too harsh an assessment
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link