Go on Google News and start clicking links to stories. A growing fraction of them now read less like articles and more like a list of bullet points. I don't know for sure they're AI generated, but I suspect a lot are. This isn't random webpages. These are commercial sites that a few years ago would have been considered reputable news sources.
That is incorrect. Read the paper and see for yourself. The relevant section is B.4.4. Here, I'll quote it for you so you don't have to even click a link.
Regarding our research on DeepSeek-R1, we utilized the A100 GPUs to prepare for the ex-
periments with a smaller model (30B parameters). The results from this smaller model have
been promising, which has allowed us to confidently scale up to 660B R1-Zero and R1. For
the training of DeepSeek-R1-Zero, we employed 64*8 H800 GPUs, and the process required
approximately 198 hours. Additionally, during the training phase of DeepSeek-R1, we utilized
the same 64*8 H800 GPUs, completing the process in about 4 days, or roughly 80 hours. To
create the SFT datasets, we use 5K GPU hours. The details are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 translates that into a cost assuming a rental price of $2 per GPU hour. And that's it. That's all they claim. No claims about how much they actually spent, nothing about the cost of their own hardware. Just a precisely worded statement of how many GPU hours the training phase took, and an estimate of how much that many GPU hours would cost at current prices. Anything beyond that is you imagining they said things they didn't say.
Citation please?
"We're doing this as part of our continued effort to run the company more efficiently and to allow us to offset the other investments we're making," said Janelle Gale, Meta's chief people officer.
Let's see how well that's going to work. Assume their average expenses are $200k per employee per year. Laying off 8000 will save $1.6 billion per year. How much of their $115-135 billion capital expenditure will that offset? Or even just the $43-63 billion increase from last year?
Not much.
Assume none of those people was doing anything useful and laying them off is pure savings. Then it's only a drop in the bucket. If some of them were doing useful things and laying them off impacts the company's business, the calculation gets even worse.
It's the classic business model of the internet age.
1. Start a ____ company.
2. Ignore all laws and regulations ____ companies are supposed to follow.
3. Profit!
It's the same model pioneered by Uber (just an app, not a taxi company!), Airbnb (just a website, not renting accomodations!), and countless others.
The list includes the EU which isn't exactly a country, but collectively does rank as a major emitter. As for what they can do:
Cut their own emissions.
Establish a precedent showing it's possible.
Encourage other countries to join them.
Grow the market for alternatives to fossil fuels.
Pressure the biggest emitters to cut their own emissions, for example by taxing imports based on how much CO2 was emitted in manufacturing them.
They can't solve the problem on their own, but these countries collectively have a lot of influence.
I already have a program to do this. It came with my computer. It's called zip. Run it on the source tree of any program and it creates a new file with a specification for the program. Run unzip on the specification file and you get a new source tree, free from any copyrights. Problem solved!
You say a compressed version of the source code doesn't count as a specification? What do you think this person's program does? I'm not going to pay him money to find out, but I'd bet the "specification" it produces is nothing like what was used in the IBM case.
Now he needs to read up on inducement, because he's opening himself up to enormous liability. By explicitly advertizing it as a tool to get around copyrights, he's pretty much waived the most common defenses in these cases, claiming you didn't intend it to be used for that purpose. By charging it for it, he's probably ruled out any kind of fair use defense. If anyone actually uses his tool to do what he says, he's personally liable.
It also won't catch vulnerabilities that exploit differences between the real physical computer and the verifier's idealized description (e.g. spectre, rowhammer). And it won't catch side channel attacks, like inferring information based on how long a computation takes to complete.
They're all tools. They catch the problems they catch and miss the ones they miss.
Finding them all is impossible with LLMs. Provably so. Anybody that claims differently is a liar. The only tool that is able to find all bugs in a piece of software is formal verification.
Correction: the only way to prove you have found all bugs is with formal verification. It's completely possible for other tools to find all of them. You just won't know for sure whether it found them all.
Speaking specifically about security bugs, a bug finder doesn't even need to be perfect. It just needs to be at least as good as the attackers. If it misses a bug, but the bug is so deeply buried that the attackers can't find it either, you're still safe.
Even if they do find it, it still may not matter. Web browsers have multiple levels of protection. Most bugs are not exploitable unless you can chain several of them together to get past all the defenses. The fewer bugs that are left, the harder it is to find enough to chain together and exploit.
Reforestation would only remove a fraction of the carbon we've already released through deforestation. We would only be reforesting a fraction of the land we've already cleared. It wouldn't remove any of the carbon we've already released through burning fossil fuels. And then we would still be burning fossil fuels, making the problem worse.
Reducing the population wouldn't stop climate change, only slow it down. The only way to stop it is to stop burning fossil fuels. And the window to stop it that way is closing fast.
The dinosaurs lived in an Earth where CO2 concentration was 10-20X what it is today.
In the age of dinosaurs, our ancestors were small animals that lived underground and only came out at night.
There is a 0 percent chance of climate change causing human extinction.
Show your math. How did you reach that result?
It wouldn't work. If the human population were cut by 50%, CO2 emissions would be cut by 50%. That wouldn't prevent climate change, just delay it a bit. The end would be the same.
Cutting fossil fuels is easy. If your electricity comes from renewable sources, you won't notice any difference. You might notice your bill going down, because wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources in most places. If you replace your furnace with a heat pump, you won't notice a difference. If you replace your car with an EV you will notice a difference, because it will be faster and more responsive than your old one. If you replace your gas stove with an induction one you'll be amazed at how much more pleasant cooking has become.
But people don't want to do these things because climate change is a hoax, and God has declared that fossil fuels are the only virtuous way to power your home.
Even if this led to "nuclear winter" and impacted the ability to grow crops leading to famine, you are still looking at less than 50% mortality.
I'm so comforted by your analysis.
Of course, most people would be unprepared to survive without the technological support structures they've depended on all their lives. What happens when you can't buy food at the grocery and the heat doesn't turn on? The blasts would only be the beginning. Some people would survive, but society as we know it today would not.
I hope he's wrong, but I think he's likely to turn out right. I'm not saying every last human will die, and I'm not saying 50 years is the right timeframe. But the odds of modern society surviving long term in anything like its current form are low.
Climate change is the ticking time bomb. Again and again we've proven unable to address it, and we're still not addressing it today. I have to conclude we likely never will, or not until it's too late. And that will destabilize everything. What do you think will happen when rising sea level drives 100 million people from their homes? When killer heat waves make parts of the Middle East uninhabitable? When the AMOC collapses and makes much of northern Europe uninhabitable? People will be desperate, and desperate people do stupid things, often involving killing each other. Throw nuclear weapons into the ring and I'm not optimistic.
It doesn't have to be like that. We just need to stop burning fossil fuels. We already have the technology. We just need to choose to do it. And nothing is stopping us from eliminating nuclear weapons except us. We are the problem. We know what we need to do, but we seem incapable of doing it.
This is the third major energy shock in the last six years. The first was from COVID, the second when Russia invaded Ukraine, and now the third from the US attacking Iran. You could dismiss any one of them as an isolated event, but when they keep happening it starts to look like a pattern. When prices have surged three times in six years, each from a different cause, it suggests the whole system is more brittle than we like to think and there will be more shocks in the future.
Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.
