Intelligence per second is a great metric. I never could fully articulate why I like Gemini 3 Flash but this is exactly why. It’s smart enough and unbelievably fast. Thanks for sharing this
Bad quality is already a cost of doing business and has been for years. Does AI write perfect code? No, but guess what. It writes better code than any of my coworkers. And my boss not only never was complaining about them but also tries to hire more of them all the time.
Because when human comes to the team they already have internal repository with skills. They may need to update them on-the-job or create new ones but they never start fresh. LLM in the other hand starts clean, they are literally blank slates and it’s your job to equip them with the right skills and knowledge. As programmers we must transition from being coders to being trainers/managers if we want to still have premium paid jobs in this brave new world
My counter argument is that thay manual training, while beneficial, wont lead to the scaling factors being thrown around. It wont lead to the single person unicorn that keeps being talked about excitedly.
For that, the model needs to learn all this architecture and structure itself from the huge repositories of human knowledge like the internet
Until then, reality will be below expectations, and the bubble will head towards popping
Does AI write 100% correct code? No, but under my watch it writes code that is more correct than anything that anyone else on the team contributed in past year or more. Even better when it is wrong I don’t have to spend literal hours arguing with it nor I have to be mindful how what I’m saying affects others feelings so I get to spend more time on actual work. All in all it’s a net positive
I believe that collectively we passed that point long before the onset of LLMs. I have a feeling that throughout the human history vast amounts of people ware happy to outsource their thinking and even pay to do so. We just used to call those arrangements religions.
Religions may outsource opinions on morality, but no one went to their spiritual leader to ask about the Pythagorean theorem or the population of Zimbabwe.
Obviously I was using the Pythagorean theorem as a random not literal example. But I’m also curious about what you mean. Mind linking to the specific relevant parts? Linking to humongous articles doesn’t help much.
I was linking it partially tongue in cheek, but oracles and the auspices in antiquity were specifically not about morality. They were about predicting the future. If you wanted to know if you should invade Carthage on a certain day, you'd check the chickens. Literally. And plenty of medical practices were steeped in religious fare, too. If you go back further, a lot of shamanistic practices divine the facts about the present reality. In the words of Terrence McKenna, "[Shamans] cure disease (and another way of putting that is: they have a remarkable facility for choosing patients who will recover), they predict weather (very important), they tell where game has gone, the movement of game, and they seem to have a paranormal ability to look into questions, as I mentioned, who’s sleeping with who, who stole the chicken, who—you know, social transgressions are an open book to them." All very much dealing with facts, not morality.
> The cosmos of the acusmata, however, clearly shows a belief in a world structured according to mathematics, and some of the evidence for this belief may have been drawn from genuine mathematical truths such as those embodied in the “Pythagorean” theorem and the relation of whole number ratios to musical concords.
There are numerous sections throughout both of these entries that discuss Pythagoras, mathematics, and religion. Plato too is another fruitful avenue, if you wanted to explore that further.
That’s a bit cynical. Religion is more like a technology. It was continuously invented to solve problems and increase capacity. Newer religions superseded older and survived based on productive and coercive supremacy.
If religion is a technology, it's inarguably one that prevented the development of a lot of other technologies for long periods of time. Whether that was a good thing is open to interpretation.
On the other hand it produced a lot of related technology. Calendars, mathematics, writing, agricultural practices, government and economic systems. Most of this stuff emerged as an effort to document and proliferate spiritual ideas.
I see your point, but I'd say religion's main technological purpose is as a storage system for the encoding of other technologies (and social patterns) into rituals, the reasons for which don't need to be understood; to the point that it actively discourages examination of their reasons, as what we could call an error-checking protocol. So a religion tends to freeze those technologies in the time at the point of inception, and to treat any reexamining of them as heresy. Calendars are useful for iron age farming, but you can't get past a certain point as a civilization if you're unwilling to reconsider your position that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, for example.
I think it is hard to fully remove religious practice from species. I think it exist along a spectrum and that there are base ritualistic behaviors most animals engage with (e.g. a pets ritual around eating or play), organized social order sort of rituals (e.g. birds expecting a particular mating dance performed well and this sensibility shared among the local group of birds), and finally what we observe in our own development as a species, higher religion, but that is merely iteratively developed from layering these simple behaviors onto simple behaviors until the whole is quite elaborate in fact.
In that sense I think getting caught up in “religion bad for tech” zeitgeist misses the point of what religion actually is. Collectively shared ritual. Belief in God, and specific shades of that, is just the step of the dance the bird does in this case. Taking a step back, plenty of atheists engage in collectively shared ritual too. Belief in the 9-5, the bludgeon that is the four years to specialize vs lifelong apprentanceships towards true mastery, economics constraining choice rather than pure skill. Do these rituals not also hold our species and technological development back? If we talk about religion, it is worth also considering the mountain of other blockers towards progress we have built for ourselves in this collectively agreed upon daily society ritual we all partake upon.
> is design[ing] better killing tools necessarily evil?
Great question! To add my two cents. I think many people here is missing an uncomfortable truth that given enough motivation to kill other humans, people will re-purpose any tool into a killing tool.
Just have a look at the battlefields in the Ukraine where the most fearsome killing tool is a FPV drone. A thing that just few years back was universally considered a toy.
Whether we like it or not any tool can be a killing tool
Have you tried LibreChat https://www.librechat.ai/ and just use it with your own API keys? You pay for what you use and can use and switch between all major model providers
Mostly because it's a multi-dimensional spectrum and because exceptions extend the rule and society deals with most exceptions via some form of adjustment 'therapy' and that requires a framework that the bulk of the people learns to be convincing enough so that the exposure effect supports/complements the (re-)adjustment.
When it comes to GPU mining (especially ETH) it is very common to undervolt / power limit a GPU as it reduces power usage greatly so the temperatures are lower than usually. Power consumption together with the price of kWh is an important factor that affects mining profitability
