I don't think so; I know a lot of them are in charge of multiple companies, which sounds like they work a lot, but I think it signals just as much that CEO really isn't that hard of a job.
Elon is the CEO of like four or five companies I think, while also ostensibly heading a government agency. If you can have four or five full time jobs, then they are not full time jobs.
Given that, I suspect that they're able to find plenty of time for themselves.
I have not heard anyone of the superrich who stays at home on the sofa; maybe there are some rich Influencers these days who are more "consumption heavy", but what I can judge is even these guys pump out stuff on a more or less professional level, meaning they cant do it as a hobby.
That seems like a wrong economic theory to me. The economy is based on differential of value. I can make furniture, so it's worth less to me than it is to you. Therefore we can trade. That's what supply/demand is. If AGI somehow exists, then the value of intelligence drops to zero for both of us, there's nothing to trade.
AGI would not make knowledge work valueless, it would move all the knowledge work value to the AGI companies.
That's not true. Any journalist would tell you that picking the stories you chose to cover is just as much a bias as how you chose to cover them. Even then, the specific words you pick, how you ask the interviewees, how you place the story on the page, what you pick as the "related stories". All of that is Editorial and reflects an opinion.
Good journalists are open about their angle. Bad journalists tell you they are "unbiased" and "just bringing you the facts".
> I realize that I may not be getting perfect information, but LLM output gives me ideas that are a combination of live web searching and whatever innate knowledge the LLM holds in its weights.
I don't mean to be judgemental. It's possible this is a personal observation, but I do wonder if it's not universal. I find that if I give an inch to these models thinking, I instantly become lazy. It doesn't really matter if they produce interesting output, but rather that I stop trying to produce interesting thoughts because I can't help wonder if the LLM wouldn't have output the same thing. I become TOO output focused. I mistake reading an interpretation for actually integrating knowledge into my own thinking, I disregard following along with the author.
I love reading philosophy as well. Dialectic of Enlightenment profoundy shaped how I view the world, but there was not a single part of that book that I could have given you a coherent interpretation of as a read it. The interpretations all come now, years after I read it. I can't help but wonder if those interpretations would have been different, had my subcouncious been satiated by cheap explanations from the lie robot.
Seconding this. Revelation happens subtly, often far removed from what you might later unpick as its "primary source". Immediate interpretation tend to be plastic and shallow.
Also it might be hard to grasp for most of us, used to constant stimulation and lack of space for contemplation and incorporation of information (I recommend the works of philosopher Byung-Chul Han on the matter) with yet unknown effects on our psyche and creative output. It takes days or weeks for one to sit and digest novel viewpoints; asking a machine to skip all that work for us is just another example of seeking instant gratification. I have no time to think, do it for me, so I can scroll to the next post already.
I don’t think you are wrong but isn’t it obvious to pick and choose cases where you might want to use LLMs vs doing the work? Seems obvious to me.
Sure if you want to read a novel, don’t ask an llm about it.
When you want to learn something quick then use LLMs. But you would know how much compression is going on.
This is something we do routinely anyway. If I want to know something about taxes, I read the first google result and get the gist of it. But I’m still better off and didn’t require to take a full course.
> If a coworker asked me to review this CL, my comment would be "Why are you wasting both my time and yours?"
If a coworker submitted a patch to existing code, I'd be right there with you. If they submitted new code, and it just so happened to be using this more optimal strategy, I wouldn't blink twice before accepting it.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do have a 64GB machine that I'd been planning to bump up to 128 right around the time the prices went through the roof. My uses are:
- VMs, I'm leaning on them more and more for sandboxing stuff I'm working on, both because of the rise in software supply chain threats, and to put guardrails around AI agents.
- Local LLMs experimentation, even pretty big MoE models (GPT OSS 120b) run pretty usably (~10 tokens/sec) with the latest tooling on a 16GB GPU and a lot of system memory.
- Even compared to a fast NvME drive, it's super nice to load a big dataset into memory and just process it right there, compared to working off of the disk.
Yeah, I have a 64GB M1 Max and can run local models pretty well. I bought it on release and even now it never feels slow. I may upgrade just because I want to move to the 14” since I travel more now.
You mean all of that running all the time is 70gb?
I tried freecad + blender with 8 mil sculpt model + prusaslicer, but that was only 11gb, so I added pycharm + steam and cyberpunk 2099 and that was 19gb.
The language server for many things I work on sits at 28gb per copy.. I work for twitch, our code base is not small for the website. Moving all engineers to min spec 48gb.
I'll do stuff all day prototyping data analysis approaches that will fill ram with a pandas cross join.
I put my4 into thermal shutdown 2x in the last month and hard locked it due to swap use 3 times in the last month. I keep records so I can talk with IT about or dev machine specs. Apparently you can't run 30 concurrent yarn builds on a 3gb codebase... Who knew.
This isn't a works on my box competition I'm glad your workloads are that small, you can be a lot more efficient than me. I'm also lucky I bought all this ram before it became absurdly expensive.
It doesn't negate that I'm constantly over 64gb and that I'm super happy I have 128+ on my machines.
most people who are into graphics processing e.g video-games, 3d for films/entertainment industry etc need these "PRO-workstation" machines, or doing fluid mechanics
if your work is around data | software engineering (web backends etc) like me - a MacBook Air tends to be sufficient
Yeah, good luck with that at current RAM prices though. DDR5 RDIMMs are going for $20/gb+ right now which means 1tb is $20k, and that's with fairly conservative pricing too.
I've been looking at building a high memory workstation recently but the RAM prices are just prohibitive. Best option atm for 1tb+ seems to be to go back a couple gen and buy DDR4, you can get 1tb at under $5/gb right now. But obviously you're giving up some performance in the process.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity.
The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
The US hasn't left Afghanistan alone. They were driven out of the country by force. They are still attacking it in multiple different ways and will continue to do so until they are defeated. Time did not end when the US was kicked out. They aren't just going to give up their goals.
I do not understand what argument you are trying to make. Nowhere do I say that time stands still or that the US doesn't still have a policy for Afghanistan. I'm saying that the US (and her allies, my country among them), with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
My country and my Government, sent people from my generation down there to die. My countrymen died in that war, and the only thing we got out of it was more enemies in the region. The Afghan is still getting persecuted for styling their beard wrong, and the Afghan woman is still getting opressed. We have nothing to show for that sacrifice.
I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to happen in Iran.
> Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
The US keeps coming back is what I'm saying. The US was kicked out of Iran in 1953. That's what all this is about. They will do the same to Afghanistan eventually. That's what I meant by time didn't stop. The Taliban isn't safe by any means. It's just a temporary reprieve.
> with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan.
As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like (there were rumours about turning a blind eye to moral impropriety because it was politically expediant).
The thing about democracy is its not really democracy when forced from the outside.
> As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like
From what I've read it's not that simple. The American system was more well liked in the cities than the alternatives. Outside the big cities, which is most of Afghanistan, the government really didn't matter much. They were still dominated by local malitias, "elders", and gangs.
To add insult to injury, the US led effort to build up an internal defense force in the country found that the only people willing to fight for the country were the very same people who had fought for the Taliban only years before.
The question left unsaid of course is if all of these problems could have been solved by a more competent actor. I would argue they couldn't have, that you can't bring peace through war, but reasonable minds can disagree.
> It’s not OK as a hard requirement for anything else such as banking.
It is in fact not a hard requirement. It just happens that when you have a relatively cheap and efficient digital identity, which is by definition trusted by the government, banks will use that to reduce risk. It's not that they can't verify your identity any other way, this is just the obvious and easy one.
I'm a banker. What you're looking for here is called "interbank clearing". In europe that would be SEPA[1]
But yes, most clearing is done daily. Each bank basically submits their daily flow of money to each other participating bank, and the central ACH (Automated Clearing House) keeps track of the balances. There's some processes in there by which banks can dispute charges, which is super interesting, but also way to complicated for me to detail here.
Side question, but what happens if there's a technical error with the service provider that leads to double spending?
Example: we bought tickets worth 300 EUR from Deutsche Bahn, they were hit by a DDoS and couldn't complete the transaction.
We got charged *twice* (i.e. 600 EUR and not refunded yet. AND no tickets!!!
Now they claim all they can do is to give us 600 EUR in vouchers (that are not even transferrable).
Would a Chargeback work in this case?
And my friend (who's ordered the tickets) has a very traditional bank that only gives a statement monthly, and probably accepts claims on every 29 of February, between 7 and 8 AM and only by fax (IYKYK those German companies...)
> well, luckily, that's not how money is stored, but instead, they're transaction based.
Not really. That's how the accounting works. It's the gold standard, and what we guarantee our customers, it's not universally how we store it though. Plenty of bank systems store just singular balances and infer that back into "transactions" in other systems to make the balance even out. Then the errors in those balances are manually corrected by looking at the sums.
IT systems only rarely match the legal frameworks they operate within.
reply