https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bolivias-president-slams-irregular-mobilization-army-units-2024-06-26/

Except that you don’t need uranium for nuclear reactors. The reason it’s used traditionally because it’s also used for nuclear weapons. Thorium is a much better fuel that’s more abundant. China has already started operating these types of reactors. The other advantage of this design is that they use molten salt instead of water for cooling. Molten salt reactors don’t need to be built next to large bodies of water, and they are safer because salt becomes solid when it cools limiting the size of contamination in case of an accident.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Operating-permit-issued-for-Chinese-molten-salt-re

We obviously will have to address the problem of capitalism sooner than later.

Literally one of the safest sources of energy production in existence.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/

Yeah think so.

The reality is that every source will have some sort of a view point which constitutes a bias. I think people should be careful with all sources, and it’s actually good to look at viewpoints from across the spectrum. You don’t have to agree with them or trust them, but it’s often useful to understand their perspective even if for the purpose of framing a counterpoint. If you know a source like quillette has a particular bias, then you just keep it in mind when you read it.

The sources I dismiss are the ones that can’t provide primary sources for the claims they make or are known to be factually wrong. These are the kinds of sources that constitute a waste of time and should be avoided.

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 tried having a discussion with you in good faith, and put effort into explaining my position. In response, I got predictable trolling. Bye.

Understanding what liberal ideology stands for is key for understanding why liberals are becoming an insular cult now that the ideology is in a crisis. This is precisely the point I’m making here regarding the threat of populism:

When threatened by populism, liberalism readily abandons its political ideals in favor of preserving the capitalist economic system. Liberalism ultimately serves as a mask for capitalism, concealing its exploitative nature behind a facade of individual freedom and democracy.

Liberals see both right and left wing populism, which is another term for the democratic will of the majority, as a threat to their core ideology of private ownership. Hence why liberals lash out whenever seeing sources they consider to fall outside the approved liberal Overton window.

Perhaps take your own advice, actually try to understand what I said, and then get back to me if you have an actual point to make.

That doesn’t support your position at all. Liberals have a narrow dogma centred on private ownership, and reject any ideas that conflict with it.

It’s kind of weird to ask for what my view of liberalism is, and then immediately reject a detailed explanation you’re provided with. It’s as if you don’t actually care for the answer to your question. That said, I’ll sum up the relevant points for you here.

The English revolution of 1649 led to the rise of a liberal capitalist system based on greed, exploitation, and violence. The western political-economic system, with its focus on profit and expansion, is a direct result of this historical process. Freedom under liberalism primarily refers to freedom of those who own private property to exploit others for their benefit.

The commercial mindset permeates every aspect of life, with money becoming the central focus of thought and action creating a society that is inherently expansionist and imperialist, fueled by a relentless pursuit of new markets and profit. This expansion is achieved through violence and subjugation. The imposition of the capitalist system that is at the root of liberalism is based on violence and coercion, forcing individuals to conform to its principles or face dire consequences.

Liberalism has two distinct aspects: political liberalism, which champions individual freedom and democracy, and economic liberalism, which is synonymous with capitalism. While appearing compatible when fighting against oppressive regimes, the two faces of liberalism clash once power is attained. Political liberties are inevitably sacrificed to protect the economic interests of the ruling class.

When threatened by populism, liberalism readily abandons its political ideals in favor of preserving the capitalist economic system. Liberalism ultimately serves as a mask for capitalism, concealing its exploitative nature behind a facade of individual freedom and democracy.

The concept of property, central to liberalism, is presented as a cornerstone of freedom. However, it ignores the fact that individual property can represent a theft from the community, and its protection justifies state violence. Liberalism’s commitment to freedom of expression is undermined by its legal and constitutional protections of property, which remove the issue of property rights from the realm of political discourse.

Overall, liberalism is a deceptive ideology that masks the exploitative nature of capitalism. It prioritizes the protection of property and economic interests over genuine political freedom and open debate.

here you go https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/

Yes, libs value ideological purity above all else, and anybody outside the lib bubble can see that. It’s the most insular ideology by far.

To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity over factual veracity.

I do find I mostly read ebooks nowadays as well.