If you were able to determine in 5 seconds whether or not a person was a violent jerk, it would take you ~28 years of around-the-clock meetings to assess >= 50% of the current U.S. population, thereby rendering this comment meaningful and true. If you needed a whopping 30 seconds, it would take ~166 years. Better get cracking!
Who would pay you? OpenAI has between $600 billion and $1.4 trillion in debt, and no hope for profitability. Anthropic, who have a much more modest $35 billion in debt (by using Sam Altman as a human shield), also has no chance of ever being in the black, pending some freak event.
I'm glad I'm not the only weirdo like this. I dropped an unfathomable $800 on a Jetson AGX Xavier in early 2020 simply because I was obsessed with SBCs at the time and couldn't stop thinking about it. This was before the Raspberry/Orange Pi 5 and Apple Silicon. I still use it as a graphics development workstation.
I dunno, I kept working on projects and at shops that had an Aarch64 deployment scenario that ended up involving cross compilation anyways. Either in the cloud in docker images on Aarch64 VPS, or on SBC for embedded systems. To me it was partially about eating my own dog food to have an ARM workstation without giving up Linux. And to have a giant amount of RAM and high speed networking at the same time.
Also a chance to learn some of the serving stack for inference.
In the end, it's worked out. It is power efficient, it shipped with a vendor supported Ubuntu. I can run Qwen 3.6 27b reasonably well on it. And it basically does everything I need applications wise.
It's also small and convenient enough I can toss it in a backpack and take it with me on trips when I'm staying at my elderly parents, just needing monitor/keyboard/mouse.
A laptop with same chipset would be nice but has its own downsides.
A good quote. I didn’t mean the question as “atheist vs believer argument”, but rather as an environment where ideas are accepted and flourish. Because I understood the parent comment: “He eventually got bored.” as "He got bored by the corporate environment not getting his ideas and thus went to a better organization in that regard."
So now, how was he, the one with brilliant and unorthodox ideas, got accepted in an institution like seminary? How he felt having arguments there, etc. …
You forget that these models are still only interpolating between human-generated datapoints fed to them. They cannot reason beyond the data they've been given, so unless everything you want to create with AI is a synthesis of prior art, you're back to relying on the stone-age human brain that created AI in the first place.
Not all training data is human generated, and it's also not clear that being ridiculously good at interpolating between data points (whatever that means) will not lead to superhuman capabilities.
I could make a robotic picture coloring machine with truly superhuman capabilities - picking only the most beautiful color combinations and staying 100% in the lines while finishing entire murals in < 1 second. However, if you need a completely new and original image rendered, the machine is of only partial utility for you. It is very well possible that your cure for cancer (if that's even feasible) or whatever else you desire is a completely new picture.
We have these breathless conversations about the new AI frontier at the peril of losing sight of reality and our own human potential.
Do you know if anyone has trained, say, a pre-2017 model and tried to get it to come up with Attention Is All You Need? If it did, would you say that was only because it's a synthesis of prior art? If so, what isn't?
Allow me to restate my point: human beings and AI both create via synthesis, but we are the only ones capable of what we could categorize as true original thought or creativity. It could be argued that nothing we do as humans is truly original or creative either, but I would counter that with the claim that an LLM could not have created any element of the society and culture that gave birth to LLMs. Maybe in six more months.
As outlined in John 1:1, Jesus is in fact God himself, and God is something far greater and more magnificent than a humanist. The message of the Bible is a total inversion of humanism, teaching us to believe in God alone rather than ourselves for deliverance from the necessary and ultimately temporary problems of evil and suffering. It's full of stories of human beings attempting to fix things on their own and failing spectacularly (which is ironic given the history of the church).
Forgot the holy spirit, doofus. The God in you and me. The reason Jesus told us to love one another. You will never be righteous with such a shallow and disconnected interpretation of God's will.
I have offered you a theological counterpoint to your claim, and you may take it or leave it, but you may not call me names and continue in any kind of meaningful dialogue here. It is beneath us both.
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:20
