That is an excellent point. The development costs of such low-volume projects are often way higher than the production costs. Having production in house or close often allows tighter, thus faster, prototyping and feedback during development, which in turn saves money.
The whole "But how can this be scaled and monetized" crowd here also does not seem to understand the point of such projects and Germany's Hacker community. It is about learning and just doing it, much less about building a high–revenue business.
I think so too, because the bar to economic sustainability is not incredibly high. I know a lot of one-man businesses operating with one Siplace pick and place machine and making a good living out of it.
Many people don't have the desire to expand forever. In my case I hope the company grows o 20 or 30 employees, and then I would work stabilizing it so it can last 50+ years. e.g. setting up a trust to oversee the well being of employees, the quality of the products, etc.
This is completely alien to most american founders and businessmen, in the words of Larry Elison: "it's not enough for me to win, it's about everybody else losing"
It is difficult to have a reasonable discourse when starting with such overkill positions. The topic is way too nuanced. The civil war in Syria had many reasons, political, economic, religious, but also environmental.
Climate change massively increases the risk on water supply and harvesting yields, and if that risk manifests in a situation where people are already unhappy due to other reasons, it can be the trigger for large-scale reactions.
With all that having many factors, you'll rarely be able to point to one thing as "the" cause. That does not make it less relevant, though.
Maybe. But the data is there, imagine financial troubles, someone buys in and uses the data for whatever they want. Much like 23andme. If you want something to stay a secret, you don't send it to that LLM, or you use a zero-retention contract.
It probably depends on what "The next IBM" means for people. Microsoft is so deeply embedded into companies right now that for larger cooperation it's practically impossible to get rid of them, and their cloud-driven strategy is very profitable.
Which does that and that's what Llang suggests as well, I remember 2 in some power in his formula. I myself find the separate one-bit counter easier to understand: each side counts pages, but they don't need the full number, only the difference between their counters and the difference can be at most one, so one bit is sufficient. If the counters are same, the actors are on the same page, if they are different, then the writer is one page ahead.
I found LLLMs to be very good of writing (unit) tests for my code, for example. They just don't get tired iterating over all corner cases. Those tests easily, in LoC, dwarf the actual implementation. Not sure if that would count towards the 30%, for example.
If I had an AGI that designs me a safe, small and cheap fusion reactor, of course I would be interested in that.
My intelligence is intrinsically limited by my biology. The only way to really scale it up is to wire stuff into my brain, and I'd prefer an AGI over that every day.
If an AI is advanced enough to design mass production ready fusion reactors, I can't help but feel that the "human in charge of that AI" quickly becomes fully redundant. There is nothing that human can do that the AI itself can't do faster, better and cheaper.
This idea of "AI taking control" reminds me a lot what Karl Marx would say about "capital".
He wrote his things during the blooming of the second industrial revolution, a time when machines were replacing humans and forcing forward new economic, social, political, cultural and labour relations. And a key issue he stressed a lot is that this diffusion of machines and capital reshaping society was brought forward by a class of people that he called the bourgeoisie. He stressed a lot that it was a power struggle within society.
We're going through something similar today with the information technologies reshaping social relations. And the Bezos/Zuckerberg/Altman/Ellison of today are similar to the industrial barons from the Gilded Age. But, the same way that people reacted against the full-blown wild capitalism from 19th century's second half, we might also see some reactions against the advance of this techno-plutocracy.
In particular, I am optimistic about how the EU and some 3rd World countries (e.g. India, Brazil) are placing restrictions on social networks and techno-cartels.
> What is the value of you in this system?
So, to answer your question: individually I can't go beyond much more than careful choices (avoid cookies, stay out of Facebook, etc). Collectively we can make political choices. Ultimately, the most consequential political choice is move away from countries that give all power to the techno barons.
The whole "But how can this be scaled and monetized" crowd here also does not seem to understand the point of such projects and Germany's Hacker community. It is about learning and just doing it, much less about building a high–revenue business.
reply