Yeah think so.

indeed

Yeah also true, you’re generally not gonna start doing anything if you know you’re getting interrupted anyways.

yup

I’d say it’s not so much that this tech doesn’t have value, but that it gets hyped up and used for things it really shouldn’t be used for. Specifically, the way models work currently, they’re not suitable for any scenario where you need an exact answer. So, it’s great for stuff like generative art or creative writing, but absolutely terrible for solving math problems or driving cars. Understanding the limitations of the tech is key for applying it in a sensible way.

not working due to hallucinations

It’s pretty clear that hallucinations are an issue only for specific use cases. This problem certainly doesn’t make ML useless. For example, I find it’s far faster to use a code oriented model to get an idea of how to solve a problem than going to stack overflow. The output of the model doesn’t need to be perfect, it just needs to get me moving in the right direction.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the problem of hallucinations is fundamental and can’t be addressed going forward. I’ve linked an example of a research team doing precisely that above.

wasteful in terms of resources

Sure, but so are plenty of other things. And as I’ve illustrated above, there are already drastic improvements happening in this area.

creates problematic behaviors in terms of privacy

Not really a unique problem either.

creates more inequality

Don’t see how that’s the case. In fact, I’d argue the opposite to be true, especially if the technology is open and available to everyone.

and other problems and is thus in most cases (say outside of e.g numerical optimization as already done at e.g DoE, so in the “traditional” sense of AI, not the LLM craze) better be entirely ignored.

There is a lot of hype around this tech, and some of it will die down eventually. However, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water.

what I mean is that the argument of inevitability itself is dangerous, often abused.

The argument of inevitability stems from the fact that people have already found many commercial uses for this tech, and there is a ton of money being poured into it. This is unlikely to stop regardless of what your personal opinion on the tech is.

Again, I’m not arguing that open source automatically solves problems, just that since AI is obviously going to continue being developed, it’s better if it’s done in the open.

Open source does actually pave the way towards addressing many of the problems. For example, Petals is a torrent style system for running models which allows regular people to share resources to run models.

Problems like hallucinations and energy consumption aren’t inherent either. These problems are actively being worked on, and people are finding ways to make models more efficient all the time. For example, by using the same techniques Google used to solve Go (MTCS and backprop), Llama8B gets 96.7% on math benchmark GSM8K. That’s better than GPT-4, Claude and Gemini, with 200x fewer parameters. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.07394

And here’s an approach being explored for making models more reliable https://www.wired.com/story/game-theory-can-make-ai-more-correct-and-efficient/

The reality is that we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube now. This tech will be developed one way or the other, and it’s much better if it’s developed in the open.

I do find I mostly read ebooks nowadays as well.

😅

Indeed, I find that aside from there just being too much media to consumer, there’s also a factor of available energy. What I notice often happens is that browsing stuff like social media requires less mental effort than reading or even playing a game. So, you kind of just do it mindlessly when you’re bored, but then you end up regretting not having spent the time doing something you would’ve found more meaningful instead. It’s an intellectual equivalent of eating fast food instead of having a proper meal.

It’s typically the same people who couldn’t define what Communism is even if their life depended on it.

Couple that with the deteriorating economic situation in US and rampant racism. People are finally starting to see burgerland for the shithole it really is.

You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.

I’ve been pointing out that anarchists have not managed to put their ideas into practice on any appreciable scale while Marxists have done this. Ultimately, what I’m telling you is that anarchists need to show how they can actually make their ideas work and withstand the challenges that they face in the real world. This is a problem that anarchists have not been able to solve in my view.

You say that it’s the fault of Bolsheviks that anarchists didn’t get their way in USSR, but there’s no reason to believe that anarchists would’ve fared any better against the capitalist invasion that followed in 1918, or against the nazis a couple of decades later. In fact, the centralization of power that you decried was ultimately what allowed USSR to rapidly industrialize and come out victorious in WW2.

Meanwhile, I completely agree that the socialist projects that Marxists managed to build are not without their own problems. Yet, I think they are a strict improvement over capitalism as imperfect as they may be. My view is that the threat of fascism is very real and that it grows by the day, and in face of that the left should focus on using tools that have been proven to defeat fascism in the past.

Revolutions require a critical mass of people to come together, and sometimes people who have different vision for the end goal find opportunities to work together as Bolsheviks and anarchists did. Lenin wrote extensively on the subject of when alliances should be formed. MLs don’t have a problem working with anarchists, recognizing that there are common interests and that a time may come where such alliances may need to be rethought. The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.

It’s also worth noting that the reality in the west today is that both MLs and anarchists are an insignificant political minority. If the current system does end up collapsing in the near future, then fascism is the most likely outcome. While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.

The Bolsheviks’ had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.

No amount of moralizing will change the fact that anarchists fail to organize effectively time and again. If anarchists actually learned anything then we’d see that put into practice. The lack of any actual achievements is the elephant in the room here.

Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.

Yes, it absolutely did as anybody with even minimal historical knowledge would know.

What I’m pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That’s the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That’s the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn’t change the material reality of the world.

The difference between anarchists and communists is that the latter actually managed to build functional societies, and to effectively resist capitalism. Anarchists failed to do that, and the reasons for why anarchist approach fails time and again are well understood now.

What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat.

Repeating nonsense over and over will not make it true.

You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.

This is an idealist position that’s divorced from realities of the world. USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.

mass shootings and police brutality come to mind

This clearly illustrates that anarchists are not capable of organizing in effective ways that can protect their ideology. The same way anarchists ended up losing to Bolsheviks, they end up losing to capitalists, and fascists. What Bolsheviks achieved was to build a socialist state that was able to defend itself and greatly improve the lives of the working majority. Anarchists simply aren’t capable of doing that as the past century has shown beyond all doubt.

USSR was the first ever attempt at building socialism at scale, and while it may have collapsed, other socialist projects live on today and continue to improve lives of over a billion people on this planet.

Nah, I’m going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.

This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.

Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that listening to anarchists regurgitate this nonsense is incredibly offensive. It completely discredits your argument and shows that it is you who’s opining on a subject you have no understanding of. All people like you accomplish is enable capitalist oppression by rejecting real world solutions.