These very valid points apply to all companies trying to make money off of proprietary models, which means margins are going to collapse in a vicious price war that will make Uber vs Lyft seem tame.
As margins collapse capex will collapse. Unfortunately valuations have become so tied to AI hype any reduction in capex will signal maybe the hype has gotten ahead of itself, meaning valuations have gotten ahead of themselves. So capex keeps escalating.
None of this takes into account the hoarding effects at play with regards to GPU acquisition. It's really a dangerous situation the industry is caught in.
Companies use to hoard talent. Now they are hoarding compute, RAM, and GPUs.
Deepseek showed that there are possibly less expensive ways to train, meaning the future eye watering expenses may not happen.
Bigger models may not scale. The future may be federations of smaller expert models. Chat GPTX doesn’t need to know everything about mental health, it just needs to recognize the the Sigmund von Shrink mental health model needs to answer some of my questions.
Echoing the other comment they showed another big thing which is that the output if an AI model is the AI model. If you mass prompt scrape their AI you can recreate it almost exactly.
Very dangerous if you think about it that the product itself is the raw building block for itself.
Openai spends 1B$ on their model, releases it and instantly it gets scrapped by a million bots to build some country or company their own model.
I will admit, one thing the crowd attention model does exceptionally well is surface the best comments on content. Whether it's HN, Instagram, YouTube, etc... the top comments are usually the "best", depending on how best is defined in the given context. On the silly Instagram meme videos my algo serves up, the top comments are invariably hilarious, often funnier than the actual content, and as you scroll it's impressive how the ordering by like count matches hilarity quite well.
This works on platforms like HN, Less Wrong or niche subreddits, which
i) work on the reddit model (submissions + tree of comments on them)
ii) are heavily moderated (e.g. no memes but also specific restrictions like on a book series subreddit to not discuss the movie adaptations)
Then this vote-based ranking makes cream rise to the top, I agree.
In general, your "depending on how best is defined in the given context" does a lot of heavy lifting.
HN and other social media sites are closer to 99% free labor, 1% paid labor, like dang. Free labor writing comments, blog posts, voting/moderating, posting videos and so on. Imagine if HN or Youtube had to pay people to generate all that content[1].
I think the only pay most get, is that you get to enjoy the site content. But in the case of Youtube, they slap so many ads in front of it that you often end up paying for this free labor content just to get rid of the ads. HN doesn't do Ad walls, but is more of a sales funnel for YCombinator and harvesting whatever value they can from the data, so not so intrusive.
[1] Youtube does pay some of the more popular content creators
reddit lacks consistent moderation and the worst is location based subreddits, where all dissenting takes are effectively hidden.
Yet one can imagine a limited set of filters that could in theory fix this:
- eliminate obvious bots
- eliminate low content / metoo / naysaying
- eliminate memes
- detect and promote high quality controversial posts equally to unilaterally upvoted ones
And perhaps let subreddits conditionally opt in or out of each of ^, but have to declare which. We know at least half of ^ is easy, and now LLMs open new doors to potentially new automations, but its likely not cost effect yet.
still i suspect the largest barrier is merely that all the popular social media sites are actively captured by ad-driven development / leaders. That cant last forever, people are sick of it.
> still i suspect the largest barrier is merely that all the popular social media sites are actively captured by ad-driven development / leaders. That cant last forever, people are sick of it.
This is why it's a good idea to make the switch to federated alternatives like Lemmy/Piefed. The more people who do this the more people will see it as a viable alternative, making it easier to get away from the ad-driven model of social media.
Excepting small communities: if you're looking for anything but humor, sort by best typically ruins the comments.
Subreddits get jokes or noob content going to the top.
PBS's Spacetime channel on Youtube -- one of the few channels with a budget to go into more depth (as in, not afraid to show you some math) on science -- has three types of comments at the top: jokes, thanks to the algorithm, and commenters saying they're too dumb to understand the video.
Political posts here on HN end up with the attention getting rhetoric going to the top.
This is a way to tell if something is social media or attention media.
"Surfacing the best comments" is only a problem at scale. And attention media demands scale whereas your social circles break down at scale. Commerce sites (like Yelp or Amazon) also demand scale, so they also have a "surfacing the best" mechanism.
> depending on how best is defined in the given context
That is a big hedge there. I found over time that many of my objectively correct and informative posts on Reddit get downvoted because the truth is sometimes inconvenient (don't critique a manufacturer in the reddit devoted to devices from that manufacturer, people will not like that, they are not there to hear unpleasant things about their buying decisions), and even on HN if you post unpopular opinions , you will get downvoted into non-existence (just try saying that Postgres isn't the best tool for everyone ever).
"best" is hard to define and so far the best attempt I've seen to get it right was the GroupLens USENET scoring system (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GroupLens_Research) — this could work quite well if it were easy to adopt for many people. It worked quite well even at the time for USENET, but only for groups where there were enough people doing the scoring.
Slashdot let you rate content across multiple dimensions.
I see no specifics about the scoring in the wikipedia article, but a search revealed that it was a simple, single five star rating scale. The same as on Amazon, and formerly Netflix?
Yes, as simple as can be. It's the recommender system that made the difference, and that was dead simple, too, but resulted in a subjective "weighting" of scores: your recommendations would depend more on people who were like you.
It is fascinating to observe the concept of protest, like so many other concepts recently, being hijacked and misappropriated to mask something else entirely. We have a particular conception of the term, what it implies, what it evokes, yet it is frequently being used to describe activities that clash with the implicit features carried by the term. This is a form of semantic warfare, in which words become enmeshed in the fog of war.
To be more precise, one aspect of what I'm describing relates to the mass production of protest, the formation of an inorganic protest "complex". Protest is popularly considered a spontaneous, organic outpouring of popular sentiment, something that reflects the mass will of a people suppressed by some hostile power. Yet increasingly protest is being used by hostile forces in a pre-meditated, engineered, inorganic way while maintaining the appearance and narrative of the "traditional" conception of protest, which it resembles less and less.
This is just one example of the general case of a metric ceasing to be useful once it is recognize as a metric. Once we begin explicitly trying to target some metric, some behavior, some form, we effectively become liars as the form we take no longer speaks to some deeper truth as it was originally meant to.
> Protest is popularly considered a spontaneous, organic outpouring of popular sentiment
It is sometime this, but it is also popularly known as an organized struggle against an oppressive power. Examples being, Ghandi's independence movement in India, the suffrage movements for the right of women to vote, and the civil rights movements in the 60s. These were all highly organized, premeditated and engineered to achieve specific objectives.
> increasingly protest is being used by hostile forces
Here you'd have to define 'hostile forces', because it sounds like you are defining it as 'anyone who disagrees with the current power structure', which would be all protesters because that what protests are.
> “It is fascinating to observe the concept of protest...just one example of the general case of a metric ceasing to be useful once it is recognize as a metric.”
The whole pivot to Optimus is insane. I can understand the market following Elon down all the other paths he randomly skips down but Optimus... Really?? The only way to explain it is it's not being taken seriously but Elon seems to be taking it very seriously...
It's especially strange considering the amount of work that Tesla (the company) put into becoming a car manufacturer which is certainly no easy feat. I'm sure some of the know-how, process, and tooling/supply lines could be transitioned to general purpose robot manufacturing - but why would you build these supply lines and factories just to screw it all up like this?
Judging by the news isn’t the pivot to creating autonomous driving systems for other manufacturers cars?
If I’m understanding correctly the pivot is to sell just the autonomous driving systems. This way it can be trained on more data. It’s a hard sell to do this while competing against the car makers whose business they are trying to court.
Selling actual cars was like Uber when they started with a black car service. Get into the luxury market then leverage that so get into the mass market.
Perhaps this is why Elon has been so adamant about not using LiDAR
I got confused between Optimus and Dojo and assumed that Tesla had a seperate internal AI division called Optimus.
In light of this I think it makes sense though. Tesla lost the government subsidies so it can't compete. Possibly the only way it can would be to have an autonomous workforce then to leverage that into selling picks and shovels (Optimus humanoid robots) to other automotive manufacturers.
Actually if you run the tape back Tesla spent over a decade on trivially preventable manufacturing fuckups by attempting to ignore a century of industry knowledge on the subject and just wing it silicon valley style. That they have infrastructure that is capable of performing manufacturing at some scale is not in question. That any of it is sufficiently optimized for sanity to be repurposed remains to be seen.
The Giga Press and battery factories (to some extent) seem pretty heavily tied to automobile manufacture. Regardless - there are many automobile production lines that found a second or third life producing down-market brands or moved to other countries because they still have some value.
I guess I'm just continuously baffled by the complete fuck-up that is/has-been Tesla motors.
The world has changed. Cars belong to a consumerism-driven, globalized economy. Humanoid robots and AI belong to a technofeudal, fascist-like state with a government-driven economy. The ruler relies on his elite. The elite relies on AI, humanoid robots, and drones to project the ruler’s power and maintain the status quo. The peasants are no longer needed. They are now seen only as a burden.
I think the only thing he can do now is have Tesla "acquire" SpaceX. He already had SpaceX "acquire" the AI thing, so that would roll all three up into a pubco where he can hide things about the business as needed (no fear of SEC problems).
I suspect it would be the other way around - SpaceX is gonna IPO in a few months at a similar valuation to Tesla right now, and once the Elon pump can go wild on the public, who knows how quickly SpaceX will go to the moon.
I mean just because it's easier to write software doesn't mean you can't have success building a business around software. You'll just need to build more features at a higher level of quality. When everyone has access to these tools the net effect will just be to elevate the overall quality of software which is good for everyone.
But they'll just disappear into thin air peacefully when that happens right? It's not like they're gonna fight tooth and nail to find a place to survive, that'd be rude.
One problem with centrally produced and distributed software is that a small subset of users demanding certain features results in feature bloat for everyone. Costs for all features are shared by all users.
Probably one way SaaS companies will adapt is to break up their offerings into more modular low cost components. While many customers will end up paying less, the addressable market will probably increase because of the new low cost options.
To a degree but most enterprise focused software usually has differential pricing. Often that pricing isn't public so different companies get different quotes.
So... You're lying about having a health condition in a loud and obnoxious way? Not sure what the point is.
Just because you can get around TSA checkpoints doesn't mean it's not "about" security. There's only so much that can be done when we have to balance safety and convenience.
1) its okay to the lie to the TSA and troll them. the TSA is just low skilled jobs program.
2) those scanning machines have leaked their images before to the public so its okay not to want to go through them and have your.png on there forever.
reply