I personally believe that eventually manufacturers will want to sell more of their hardware and look for ways to sell hardware to consumers. isnt that situation quite similar to the days of early computers? I am for sure biased in hoping that will be the case
Perhaps for some very specific capabilities such as TTS, translation, voice recognition and so on. But for general intelligence models, better hardware just directly allows better models and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.
I'm pretty sure that's not linear, so I personally expect the benefits of larger models to diminish. The question is at what point that's the case. I guess a lot of variables play into it, but it is possible that the benefits of running larger models will be too expensive for the little benefit they provide
unfortunately the history of these big tech companies has shown that they do not care about data privacy and are even willing to lie about it. but I guess its irrelevant, in practice you have to assume the worst anyway since there is no way to verify it
I am personally okay helping them as long as they publish the models and dont keep them closed. And I dont trust the settings where providers say they wont train on it.
it's not necessarily capitalism, I personally believe any system that drives progress would cause this in one way or another. My prediction is that birth rate decline will accelerate further. There's going to be some kind of universal basic income in many places, such as Ireland made for artists. However, it probably will not be enough to feed a family, and therefore we will see birth rates decline further. It's because we evolved to prioritize resources over reproduction and we are becoming more efficient, which means less people are needed to sustain the same amount of resources
I dont think thats right, the models and the gpus are the means of production.
in capitalism the people with the capital get the profit, not the people who do the work. however, workers are said to benefit too through their salary, just less so
The reason regular-capitalism worked is that all production used to depend on workers bottlenecking the free flow of capital by demanding salaries in exchange for their labor. Now that we've removed that obstacle, capitalism demands workers seize the means of production in order to maintain the status quo. Hence, supercapitalism.
regular capitalism works but now that the means of production are not factories, the workers have to become more entrepreneurial. Then they will control their destinies.
You miss the point: we advertise the change as workers becoming part of the owner class and realizing all of the economic gains of their work, thus supercapitalism. Don't use the "s" or "c" words.
what makes you think that china ever gave up its communist goals? I personally see that everything they do aims towards that goal. From the one child policy, the huge amounts of empty apartments they build, the stuff they produce for almost free, the fishing.. open sourcing the models perfectly fits that culture too, it's the means of production
The one-child policy died a long time ago. Also, the accumulation of wealth by connected politicians and businesspeople flies in the face of what communism is supposed to stand for.
There is a reason real estate values in popular cities has skyrocketed, and it’s not due to the locals getting wealthier. It’s where Chinese and other oligarchs put their ill-gotten wealth (well, besides Bitcoin).
One-child policy did not die, it just morphed into Three-child policy, still a form of family planning, and still would probably fine people for having more than three kids.
true, but as far as I understand it did because birth rates got too low. so they replaced it with a two-child policy and later with a three-child policy
> Also, the accumulation of wealth by connected politicians and businesspeople flies in the face of what communism is supposed to stand for.
Yeah, I am sure there's a lot of cases for that. But as far as I know the amount of billionaires has started declining in China, and I don't see how that means that they as a country moved away from the goal, it just means there's issues
> There is a reason real estate values in popular cities has skyrocketed, and it’s not due to the locals getting wealthier.
I don't know about that, you could be right. A google search for real estate prices in china reveal a lot of news articles how they are going down though.
> It’s where Chinese and other oligarchs put their ill-gotten wealth (well, besides Bitcoin).
Wouldn't be surprised if rich people in china invest in real estate. They don't have free capital flow, so its not easy to invest abroad and it becomes an obvious choice. Bitcoin is banned in China for that reason too
But again, as far as I know that does not mean the country moved their goals of trying to reach communism one day
> I don't see how that means that they as a country moved away from the goal, it just means there's issues
They're further from Communism than they've ever been since the PRC was founded. The gap between rich and poor is growing there, not shrinking.
> A google search for real estate prices in china reveal a lot of news articles how they are going down though.
They're investing outside China (Vancouver, Toronto, NYC, London, Sydney, Melbourne, etc.) because their assets are safer there (these countries all have strong property protection laws). Like Bitcoin, freedom of capital flows may be restricted, but the wealthy seem to be evading these restrictions with impunity.
However, that's not my point - I did not mean to say that they are going to be successful but rather that it still appears to be a long term goal for them.
> Like Bitcoin, freedom of capital flows may be restricted, but the wealthy seem to be evading these restrictions with impunity.
I don't know about that, without any source of data I guess I just have to take your word for it. I would not be surprised if you were right in this case though.
China is a ruthless capitalist country managed by an authoritarian regime. Planning and lack of respect for the individual or the rule of law are not communist per se.
is it though? I guess it depends on the definition you use. The line between federation and confederation is rather thin, and I believe those terms were historically even used as synonyms. Switzerland is at least called Confoederatio Helvetica, but you could probably argue it's a federation due to the centralized government. But then we also have to keep in mind that the sovereignty and the power of the country stays with the people and the cantons, and not the central government due to it's direct democracy.
if you dont mind asking, what dont you like about kerberos? I personally like it quite with certs / hardware token
to be honest, most things you list can be setup with some research. The only one I am not sure about is integrated storage, but then I am also not entirely sure what that even is supposed to mean exactly
The user experience between a phone, tablet and computer should be symbiotic. Krb is not a first class thing in the mobile world. So users now hav great Krb experience with Outlook.exe but are typing passwords into Safari at owa.example.com (anywhere you type an AD password that isn't lsass or ADFS is really not good posture)
So, passwords are bad and the password is a key component of krb. Moving away from passwords is a step in the right direction eg OIDC.
right given the product names I assume you are on windows. with kerberos people shouldnt have to type their passwords into apps at all, and if you use pkinit there are no passwords at all?
i give you the mobile part, I dont know how well it is supported - iOS claims to have support though, and android through third parties I believe. Never tried that. Its just that I personally have a preference for auth methods that dont require opening a browser for desktop apps
reply