DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
OK, this is the last straw, I'll write up in detail on the condition of open source in AI, as I promised. Mods, would that be best for the roundup or a separate post? I don't have an opinion.
I happen to know a bit about this specific issue.
For now, in short:
Deepseek-Coder is, as far as anyone can tell, for real, and a bigger deal than Meta's LLaMA3-70B. Claims to the opposite are mostly red-faced nationalistic sputtering and cope, in the vein of "Unitree robots are CGI, Choyna fakes and steals everything". (Indeed, we're at the stage where Stanford students, admittedly of Indian extraction, steal from Chinese labs). It even caused Zvi to update. Aran, the main librarian of the whole field, says that "It has the potential to solve Olympiad, PhD and maybe even research level problems, like the internal model a Microsoft exec said to be able to solve PhD qualifying exam questions."
It arguably, but pretty credibly, reaches parity with SoTA models like GPT-4 in the most utilitarian application of LLMs so far, which is code completion. It's comparably good in math and reasoning (even on benchmarks that have been released after it got uploaded to huggingface, from Gaokao to open-ended coding workloads). It's substantially more innovative than any big Western open source release (small ones like SigLIP, Florence2 etc. can compete), more open and more useful; it's so damn innovative we haven't figured out how to run it properly yet, despite very helpful papers. Design-wise, I'd say it's one year ahead of Western open source (not in raw capabilities though). It's been trained on maybe 60% more compute than LlaMA-3-8B, while being 30 times bigger and significantly more capable, and it might well only be 2x more expensive to run.
The issue of inference economics is unclear, but if their papers do not lie (and they don't seem to, the math makes sense, the model fits the description, at least one respected scientist took part in the development of this part and confirms everything), they can serve at those market-demolishing costs with a healthy margin, like 50% margin actually (if we ignore R&D costs at least). Their star developers seem very young. A well-connected account, that leaked Google project Gemini and Google Brain/Deepmind merger months prior to it being announced, made a joke (of the haha-kidding-not-kidding-variety) that "deepseek's rate of progress is how US intelligence estimates the number of foreign spies embedded in the top labs".
We don't understand the motivations of Deepseek and the quant fund High-Flyer that's sponsoring them, but one popular hypothesis is that they are competing with better-connected big tech labs for government support, given American efforts in cutting supply of chips to China. After all, the Chinese also share the same ideas of their trustworthiness, and so you have to be maximally open to Western evaluators to win the Mandate of Heaven.
I've been meaning to write another update on AI but not sure if anyone still cares.
Maybe I'm stunted, but I think this is an essentially elementary school bullshit, on the level of pulling girls by their braids (does anyone still do it?) or calling boys/girls gross: confused flirtation going too far. To the extent that adult American women are sincere in saying that they're less afraid of a bear, they're stunted too; unfit to be citizens, literally infantile, living in an egocentric world where "beliefs" are merely transient activations of the underdeveloped brain, means to coordinate physical wailing and flailing to get gibs from the infinitely caring environment. Admittedly this is an adaptive mode of reasoning in a spoils-based society, so long as you belong to the correct caste.
But I presume they aren't sincere, for the most part, and just do not care about contents of their words or the impact on too serious men. So it's signaling and taking jabs at men.
Few great comedians are women, but on average women are impressively adept at wordplay and deadpan sarcasm, in my experience.
Now as for men and their daughters, this is more obviously pure signaling to fit into the stereotype of an overprotective macho. No one's actually leaving anyone in a forest with a bear or a stranger, so it's a cost-free signal.
This is all trivial. The interesting question here, if any, is whether norms encouraging such long-winded and massive pranks are acceptable or a sign of dysfunction. Remember, many Americans are in fact retarded, paranoid, schizophrenic, pathologically anxious etc. – a middle-class joke that's presented as consensus can have real impact. Is [functional] 85 IQ enough to reliably distinguish ubiquitous mean-spirited kidding from common sense, without it leaking into world-model representations? Is 80? 75? The true distribution is not Gaussian, there are lumps on both tails, and plenty of outliers.
Beyond this straightforward utilitarian concern for unwell people and their close ones, though, I'd say the problem of normalizing casual deadpan sarcastic misogyny is the same as with any other kind of mistreatment, and the appropriate response is the same as we see high-agency minority groups provide to politically incorrect smartasses. It is perceived, correctly, as the beginning of a slippery slope towards rhetorical superweapons and physical discrimination. In a degenerating culture like the modern American one, defending your personal and your collective identity's honor is in fact the sane attractor; it's unsustainable for some subpopulation, even if it be all men, to be all sticks-and-stones-but-words stoics, and others be of the "if they don't fight back this means we can hit harder" persuasion. (I'd go so far as to say that you can't be a stoic period; stoics are simply cuckolds with extra steps, just like their hero Marcus Aurelius was a literal cuckold. But that's beside the point).
My (obvious) belief is that it's not really acceptable but there's little that could be done.
Ironically, I first understood his take the other way around [erroneously]. That protests today are wrong with regard to the modern state of the world, but are right if we imagine them happening half a century ago with the same slogans. BLM was atrocious and unjustified, but in the 1970, there was a kind of solid argument about remnants of institutional racism. Likewise for feminism and other fashionable causes. Were there protests against Israel in 1973-74? Maybe some organized by the PLO, I'm not sure. But Hamas had not even been founded yet.
It's a nice city with history.
The invasion force really was undersized for the task, and predictably failed to capture Kiev or much of anything. This is why we're still talking about this 2+ years later. Few people not very high on Kremlin supply expected such a strategy to work, and it really didn't.
Ukrainians do not want "peace" on Russian terms. This is very understandable. Them running away from the ground zero is also understandable, of course. But even Ukrainians who grew up outside ex-USSR are quite certain that the war must go on. So are Americans, therefore it will continue.
I reckon we'll see large scale field tests of Anduril tech before it's over. There really are issues with manpower.
I think some share of goodwill from American liberals will be lost irreversibly, but it'll result in little more than Israel gaining more independence in its actual environment. It's not Ukraine.
On a longer time horizon, demographics will change towards less favorable for progressive causes except the anti-white ones specifically (as it's largely the fascination of low-fertility urban whites and not exciting to new growing strata), and Americans will largely forget this issue, or embrace a new paradigm, because they don't have awareness of long time horizons and Israelis do.
And, honestly, everyone is tired of victimhood Olympics. Jews can afford to embrace and feel pride in their natural social aggression, so prominently visible across the spectrum, in Dershowitz and Finkelstein both. But when it becomes normalized, Finkelstein's argument for treating Palestinians magnanimously is less coherent.
That's a bit too strongly put. Life isn't all high school where jocks rule supreme; you can get away with achievement in obscure fields, adult women can appreciate you being a respected academic. That's part of what people seek (and find) in academia, actually.
No, my beef with Aaronson stems precisely from him having never left high school. From his generalized anxiety that got perfectly exposed in the Airport Episode, and his kvetching about Trumpian Jackbooted Thugs who'd have come for his family, and his indignation at anyone who finds his reactions excessive. He's not merely an unattractive "nice guy" in the toxic manosphere sense, he acts literally like a neurotic woman who's also an autist with a squeaky voice; and real women – in aggregate – are correct to not want him no matter how you slice it. But his wife is a fellow STEM nerd who doesn't mind it, and they are apparently good for each other. Whatever.
yes but he was equally obnoxious when arguing with the HBD people about any other topic too.
another piece of evidence of the artificiality of this meme is that it reverses the scariness of those two possibilities. To me, a world where people come to harm because of impersonal arbitrary forces, of an inherent chaos which can be mitigated or ignored according to your risk tolerance, is a comforting world.
Fully agreed regarding relative sentiment. I never quite understood why this default hypothesis is presented as something scary – but for the purpose of stating a paradox, to signal cleverness, and also support for the status quo and high-status groups.
Malice is inherently and obviously threatening. Perhaps "the scary thing is nobody's in charge" folks see it as witty because they're not accustomed to fearing malice of others. Or they have a strong intuition that an orderly technocratic world is preferable, no matter its ultimate morality? In any case, quite alien logic.
Suppose we reverse stock photos in this picture.
Does it look like a snide suggestion that immigrants struggle with learning English?
Huh? I don't endorse the author's evaluation, as I do not believe Israel is entitled to even greater American support. Protesting American displeasure is pure arrogance on Israeli part.
I mainly keep up with Western media through second-hand complaints these days. I am well aware it's more of a religious and educational institution than an entertainment-focused one.
It is a pity. As a kid, I liked consuming American cartoons and such. Now it just doesn't click, the sermonizing is too pervasive and too easy to notice.
Loved Pantheon S2 though. Maybe "Hollywood" should try adapting more content of Chinese authors. It feels fresh, original and open-minded.
Yes, people should play to their strengths, and it sure has worked out well for him. So now he can feel himself being a persecuted loser nerd who'll surely get crushed by jackbooted thugs one day, while he's a successful academic with a healthy family and significant following, insulated from most any threat in life.
In my opinion, this posture of his is more pathetic than that of actual uncontroversial losers, and in the dating market it'd have been rightly penalized (separately from his appearance).
Regardless, this dispute itself is pathetic wading through someone else's high school traumas. Low-class Russians getting conscripted are not like Aaronson, nor are they like Henry the Slayer from Scott's fable. They are losers on every dimension sans perhaps tactical operational. Unfortunately it seems like I have to disambiguate. Aaronsons of the world, at the peak of their sexual frustration, often tell themselves that women love Henrys, implying that there is some correspondence between losing at conventional milestones of being a full-fledged adult, masculinity, and popularity with the opposite sex. And oppositely, nerds can feel their loss diminish – dumdum broads chasing Chad Thundercock, who cares! – and their success become more substantial, by contrasting it to the animalistic condition of an imagined Henry. Hence the whole of PUA/Redpill doctrine. This is cope. Women love men, not dysfunctional deadbeats. Some deadbeats happen to be manly, or at least more manly than Aaronson, which is not a high bar to clear; but ceteris paribus, women prefer men who are also conventionally successful, powerful and respected. This is very trivial. Nerd-Tate discourse is confused and fueled by resentment.
Transient details (like the fact that high-IQ, often autistic nerds who go to places like MIT and stay virgins until graduation have been economically well rewarded over the last few decades, and so can be considered "winners" despite low initial success with women) do not change much in the overall picture.
unsure where the propaganda angle is, unless seeing such an interracial coupling itself is jarring to you. (Again, based on my ignorance of this and pretty much all games I can't speak to how odd it is in that context.)
You know, it sure is harder to take this posture of good-natured misunderstanding at face value after you have explained your situation as a minority father of mixed race children in a country with very exclusionary culture. For you, normalization of miscegenation – whatever else goes in the package – feels necessary, so you will be obnoxiously obtuse, to the point that your rhetorics would've amounted to social violence, were your opponent not anonymous*. «Oh dear me, so do you think there is something… wrong when people of different races join hands in Marriage? Aren't we all God's creatures with inherent value? Huh. So strange, so cruel. But to each his own!».
No (in case this has to be spelled out again): it's more about the hamfisted erasure of the representation of the most typical and normative pairing, and the campaign to code the Blacked.com** image of relationships as the default, whereas in reality it's a distinctly less prestigious and healthy pattern. This is what the producers have in mind, this is what they want the viewers to have in mind, this is no more complex or innocent than casting white men as dumb losers and creeps who get humbled by Girlbosses and Smart-Dressed Blacks (who have good chemistry with Girlbosses) in commercials.
*I have never figured out for sure whether people like you are just liars, or your brains wisely do not distinguish copes and object-level world modeling, for reasons of preserving memory capacity and behavioral fluidity. Either mechanism is enough to make conversation quite hopeless.
**one more "clever" status-preserving maneuver here is to say, for instance, «pardon me, I do not know what you are talking about… oh», and derail the topic into sneering insinuations about racist chuds watching interracial porn. It's a pretty transparent and pathetic development. As I've been warned for baiting people into petty comebacks, I'm stating this to avoid such a development. But neither can I be assed to put this in some other way.
Maybe it'll happen this time. Maybe the next time. Israel is capable of successfully prosecuting a war against Iran without American assistance or approval, and the logic of the situation in the region makes such a war nigh inevitable (unless the Iranian regime goes down otherwise).
As I've said a year and a half ago:
Right now Israel is preparing for war. Washington is making somewhat noncommittal noises, but the truth is, it's just unable to do more than postpone the decision, drag their feet with demanded supplies. And if they tarry too much, it will be self-defeating. Israel is resourceful, they will make do with tools it has or can produce or procure by other ways – only further decoupling. All those complaints about $3 billion that right-wingers like to air – they're no doubt annoying to Israelis, and will be thrown back in American faces when this annoyance (and the political benefit of bringing it up) outweighs the utility of that chump change.
It's a popular conceit on the far right that the US will one day grow out of the «Greatest Ally» narrative. What is not considered is that Israel is straight up a politically stronger, more agentic and more serious country, and can pull the plug from their own side.
Some random Russian economics and history channel comes to mind:
How "unexpected"💁🏻♂️
👉🏻"U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a conversation with his Israeli counterpart Yov Galant, expressed displeasure that Washington was not warned about Israel's plans to attack the Iranian "consulate" in Damascus. This was reported by The Washington Post. The claims were made during a telephone conversation on April 3 (a day after the attack). Informed sources told the WP editorial board that Austin and other senior U.S. defense officials believe Israel should have warned Washington about the attack."
🤷🏻♂️That's curious, why should Israel report on its actions to pathological liars and traitors? So they can pass all the information to the enemy?
The US reputation continues to punch through the bottom - and that's actually a good thing rather than bad. No one should depend on their internal intrigues and problems anymore.
The author is Catholic, but I get the impression – from many distinct sources – that even mildly Zionist Jews are inclined to agree.
Americans are truly delusional if they believe that their clients – be those Ukrainians or Jews – feel any loyalty to them just because of past help, or can be blackmailed with talks about some common Western cause or principles or interests. They're going to do what they find useful, at occasions they deem opportune.
Seeking a better passport.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/10/argentina-pregnant-russians-birth-tourism-crackdown
To put it bluntly, I do not feel like pandering to misogynistic copes of people like Aaronson, who imagine themselves "romanceless" or "nice guys" rather than unsettling, mentally unwell, pathetically unmanly and, yes, plain ugly nerds. He is a loser. But on the whole, less of a loser than a penniless drunk conscript who'll get his dick blown off by a Ukrainian suicide drone.
I can only congratulate him for making it to a safe environment and finding a woman who looks past those biological drawbacks and loves him for who he is: a high-IQ prosocial academic with a badly coordinated, potbellied body of a paranoid bullying victim attached.
I counter with the Susan Inequality Principle.
Incidentally, I've never seen more pregnant Russian women in a single place as I've seen on the streets of Buenos Aires in 2023.
Do you know what women don't like? Losers. Losers, low status, poverty, lack of access to quality consumption, and crucially – personal risk. They just loathe giving birth to children of low-status losers (eg. meat wave pellets with no human rights that are Slavic combatants) in an economically degrading, sanctioned, fascist country fighting an unwinnable war, as the streets get filled with thuggish police, premodern immigrants (some of whom actively support ISIS) and plain deranged cripples. They'd rather flee.
I'd rather not speak as to the state and living conditions in Ukraine.
To be honest, I think women are sensible in this regard.
I've recently congratulated my former friend from the AFU, on account of the birth of his son. He thanked me, and asked whether I know how to get modafinil in Spain.
So it goes.
Yeah the races=subspecies is a racist talking point and professional geneticists and other scholars do not consider it valid, but all it practically means is that we commit to call human populations, no matter how distinct, only that – populations, at most races, not subspecies. It's much the same construct.
Applied to human races, the genetic differences between human racial groupings fail to stand out against the backdrop of human genetic diversity sufficiently, across the whole genome, to make the cut as biological subspecies, at any threshold of "sufficiently" to be useful across the rest of biology (not that biology has a lot of use for subspecies in general -- species are fuzzy enough already)."
No, there's no solid quantitative reason to say that eg. Australian Aborigines and Germans are that less distinct than two recognized subspecies of Canis Lupus and thus can't be called subspecies. It's simply not a matter of quantity.
To me it the dismissal of an entire race, or large group, is outside my ability to sympathize. I just don't get it. Is not individual interaction relevant? Do you have no (Indian) friends or acquaintances whose benevolence (or whatever) gives you pause in your wholesale rejection? Is it so easy to categorize people into groups and be done with it?
It is relevant of course, I can make exceptions, and many Indians are kind and good to me and even good by my own standards. There isn't such an entity as racial spirit that compels every person of Indian descent to keep some essential properties. I also believe that some Indian subgroups are, on average, relatively free from properties I despise, even better than certain Western subgroups.
What of it?
This whole discussion of collective responsibility is tedious, just inane rumination over the core Hajnali thesis about individualism and denial of everything meaningful to the notion of human groups. Suppose some staunch defender of Western values on this site speaks to the effect of (as has happened before): "you're okay personally but Russians as a whole are weird aliens and the world would be better off with your nation nuked, like von Neumann had said". They can make elaborate arguments about the deeply corrupt Russian political culture that has probably left an indelible mark on the gene pool, the cruelty, the delusion, the impossibility to intervene in a more targeted manner, whatever. The fact of the matter is it's a – sensibly articulated – rejection of what my people have amounted to collectively, and my people absolutely do have a collective existence, effective collective will, and collectively maintain, at great cost, a certain direction, arguably against the better judgement of a large plurality of themselves; inasmuch as they are a people, these things are true. Inasmuch as I am a part of my people, it is true regarding myself. What does it benefit me that I am graciously exempted as an individual, if a large and organic part of my individuality is clearly shared with those condemned, and is causal to their fate? I can even bear the judgement, but I will not… I do not need acceptance premised on alienation from myself. Some do. Indians, on average, probably do not.
Indians, too, are a people. As a people, they have a collective identity (and sub-identities) and collective properties emergent from distributions of individual traits, which have effects above and beyond the first order effect of raw distributions. This amounts to the India we know and discuss. An individual Indian can be an outlier in traits, and even a conscious defector against this not literally existing as an entity, but effectively very powerful, shared Indianness. (Likewise for a Chinese, a Russian, a Jew, an American Black, anyone). Then again, an individual Indian can be even more contemptuous of his people's culture and way of life than I am. That way of life exists, is rooted in what Indians collectively are, maintains itself; India is not just 1.5 billion randomly spawned individuals. Westerners can sugarcoat it or trivialize it or outright deny it, but they're blind and delusional to do so, mere adaptation-executing machines, products of their own way of life and religion and selection, and I don't see why I should partake in their obsolete self-deceit any more than I should enjoy Indian cartoons. I suppose the claim you make is that not doing so would be Bad. Okay.
I don't want to discuss taste.
Does anyone else feel "there's no other place like home" sort of way about this place?
I do. It's funny, I'be become somewhat prominent elsewhere, yet I never feel such warm rush as when writing for you guys. And that despite being not an amicable type. I've been among you, what, five years? And made maybe three friends. Even so.
It's a damn shame that Zorba didn't do good on his promise of establishing a recruiting pipeline. But that's hard, and now clearer why it's hard.
More options
Context Copy link