The slides that are circulating say the quiet part out loud. Itâ(TM)s one workload (timed compilation) and they position their 20 core part as âoebeatingâ a 10 core M5 and coming âoereally close guys!â to a 16 core M5 pro. Whatâ(TM)s missing? Any LLM benchmarks⦠itâ(TM)s a repeat of the DGX which was quickly repositioned as âoemeant for low cost development for the CUDA stackâ after the M4s inference mopped the floor with it. (MLX/metal does have limits but for general purpose use itâ(TM)s not even a contest).

Neither of you are actually citing any information to back up your positions. Both arguments boil down to "nuh-uh, you're dumb." For instance:

- Total undergraduate placement (workforce, post-grad, fellowships) over the past 20 years has held steady ~85%

This is just a very shallow pass but it would seem to support Local ID10T's position that DEI has no impact. A much more through review would be required. However, if you go back 50 years you notice something different. The undergraduate workforce placement rate was 25%. It's now at about 60% (peaking at 70%). Before the 80's, Harvard was seen as a stepping stone to a research and academic career... not "leaders of industry".

Anyway, you can continue pointless name calling... or you can have a discussion. Your call. One often fixes things, the other generally doesn't.

It's an 16x RTX Pro 6000s.
- 1.6 TB/s GDDR7 vs 8 TB/s HBM3e on a B200
- No NVLink, just PCIe Gen5 which is roughly two orders of magnitude slower
- A gigabit switch... _gigabit_

That's not a frontier model server, that's an AI workstation. And no, I'm not exaggerating. You don't run models production models over PCIe bridges.

And, if you continue reading the docs you'll see that the XFRA model has account data, chat history, system prompts, all the supporting infra back at the data center. So you have a substantially slower inference that still has to phone home over a 1 gigabit _symetric_ link for the data it needs.

And that's on top of the fact this "distributed" data center thing has been tried before and doesn't work for many practical reasons.

This has to be an AI bubble grift. I can't think of a single sysadmin I know that wouldn't kick you square in the nuts for even suggesting that you do this with their infrastructure.
- The last mile power and comms is questionable (the grid may have 40% capacity)
- The availability will suck
- The latency will suck
- The downtime until a operator can get out to fix it will really suck
- Homeowners will kick them out after the first 3:00am service call

The industry is not going to die. Players will but the industry wonâ(TM)t. AI is overhyped but it is very real and functional. The hype is causing companies to get over extended and when the investments dry up, theyâ(TM)re screwed (Iâ(TM)m looking at you OpenAI).

Google is just hedging and also trying to lock in Anthropocene as a Cloud customer.

I'll preface this by saying I don't think LLM creators should be able to use content without permission/license. This is just an interesting discussion.

LLMs generally do not reproduce text. They can be made to do so with specifically crafted prompts but no current LLM is just going to regurgitate "Free as in Freedom" unless asked to do so. Instead it will use statistical matching to apply the text to probable matches, a very crude version of what we do. LLMs are starting to approach the way we meat sacks use books. We take in the information and then we apply it to problems. Where do we cross the line? Where do we say anything (or anyone) who is trained on (has read) this material is now required to do their work for free because they have the knowledge from that book as part of their training set?

It seems a little preposterous but that's where this is headed logically. It's shifting from "You can't reproduce this book." to closer to "You can't use the knowledge in this book except under the conditions we dictate." That's dangerous.

The details are freely available in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard".

Dear young turks:

If you can't take it with you when you decide to walk out the door (or the company shows it to you), it is not compensation. Period, end of story.
- Stock options: do you actually have the stocks yet?
- Bonuses: do you actually have the bonus yet?
- Fancy coffee machines and free lunches: nope
Insist on money so that you can decide what to do with it.

A note on stock option. Besides the fact that stock options often don't pan out, investing in the industry you work in (much less the company you work for) is generally a bad idea. If the industry is in a down cycle and you get laid off, your options are probably worthless at that point as well. The value of your options is not tied to your effort but the decisions of PHB a few floors up.

Sincerely,
The Grey Beard

- The amount of energy and effort to deliver that 15 watts (food) is around 150W (10:1) based on the US needs.
- It takes years of investment before that one human brain can function at that level.
- There's also a decline at the end where it's not delivering what it used too.
- There are also all the additional creature comforts that we need to function (lighting, air condition, etc, etc.)

With that said... AI's are still no where near the same value proposition as the human brain (I actively use them and push for their _effective_ use at my job), much less providing actual companionship and "human" value to life. Him making this comparison is ridiculous.

Whatever the case, Thesis #2 has got to be a part of it. Cloudflare and Akami are two of the stocks taking a hit and that makes no sense. I don't care how good the code is:
1. I want someone else to handle the brunt of the DDoS crap so I can focus on running my app.
2. AI doesn't magic a global CDN for you.
People saw AI + Security and just started dumping anything related to security without understanding what Anthropic's announcement was really about or what the companies they were dumping really do.

This is a corporate stupidity tax that has blowback on consumers. It works like this:
- A lot of corporate clients require certified/"blessed" stacks
- They have legacy software that doesn't support Windows 11 so they have to use Windows 10.
- Microsoft (Oracle/IBM/etc) sales staff figures out how much cost they'll tolerate before they move to something else
- They then charge you $0.01 below that.
When Y2K was a thing we still had some o.g. NT 3.x (I think 3.1) servers running. IT refused to update them because they were running software that wasn't 4.x certified. Microsoft quoted us "pinky-to-mouth" $1 Million USD for the Y2K fix... just the fix. There was a third party fix but we it was a finance firm that required everything to be "certified".

AWS/Azure/GCP run the same racket whenever a customer makes noise about moving to a competitor. Your discount is far enough below the cost/risk to move that you stay and it's that's much harder to move the next time around.

You can already do that with commodities and foreign exchange.Forex is widely available, generally fast and cheap. Bitcoin isnâ(TM)t solving anything here. Especially since anyone storing their wealth it it got hosed the past few weeks. Thatâ(TM)s not a very good store.

There is no underlying reason to buy or hold bitcoin other than it might go to the moon. (Enough) shares in a company give you voting rights and sometimes a dividend. Companies need foreign exchange to do business in other countries. Gold, silver and copper have material use in production. A company does well, stock go up. A company does well or poorly, stocks move. Same for companies in an industry or country. Currency is driven by a countries economics. Commodities are driven by need.

This is vastly oversimplifying it but the point is there are clear indicators that should justify movement.**

Bitcoin: You know what a fugazi is? Fugayzi, fugazi. It’s a whazy. It’s a woozie. It’s fairy dust. It doesn’t exist. It’s never landed. It is no-matter. It’s not on the elemental chart. It’s not f**king real. (Yes, I know he was talking about stocks). It's not real so there is nothing to base the movements on. It's purely speculation on whose the greater fool.

** I'm purposefully ignore day traders who go purely on technical indicators and often ignore (or are ignorant of) the underlying macros...

I don't think is a slam dunk for Pinker/"blank slate". All their really discussing is the end state of the models... not how it got there. As others have pointed out, children pick up language without the resources that are required for training current models, specifically the corpus. Even as recently as 100-150 years ago children would learn a language with exposure to less than 100 adults and a handful (if any) books. There's something about the human brain that makes it incredibly good at this. It's yet to be determine if that's more efficient "processing", storage, an underlying/primed base model, etc (or some combination them which is probably more likely).

Not disagreeing with you but they're discussing the resulting model, not how how the model was created. Human brains are are many orders of magnitude more efficient when it comes to learning (training) and using the model but it seems that there are similarities in the models. This could mean that we're on the right track and with the general concept, computers just suck at creating it and using it.

And they do use feedback loops in training now.