for those curious, regarding your first point, as far as I know any home that is dark red on this map has access to it, and any light red is planned to get access: https://ftth.init7.net/
I find it difficult to compare LLMs in general. It will do better in some cases, worse in others. As far as I see it, most of it is marketing. You can try it out extremely cheaply though through their API and OpenCode. I personally would recommend it.
I would not call them idiots personally, they are just facing an extraordinary difficult situation with their open weight competition that's almost impossible to fix. They will have to aim for the high-end B2B market eventually, and attempt to lock out their competition through regulation or other means
I was wrong, I thought they would only go for B2B already. But instead they will remove it from the subscription and price it at 50$/mtok. Compared to GLM-5.2 for 4.40$ that's quite a gap
Probably not. But I also cant imagine the hardware not improving. Also there is surely a sweet spot regarding price and quality. I have strong doubts that much larger models will give much better results, which is not like disk space where every additional bit makes it one bit better
thats true. also, I watched the glm prices and it didnt take long before the prices dropped even lower for some providers. its like another layer of competition between hosters
I am quite certain that it is delayed on purpose to maximize the gains, but at some point some company will see the huge demand for local ai and will want to eat the cake (given that it is feasible)
thats pretty scary to me. what will the data centers be used for if people run that stuff offline? maybe new models? but will there even be any demand? I guess we will see
I feel like the gap is closing to be able to run good enough models locally even for coding and I would assume it could make some companies a bit nervous. Am I wrong about that?
its a big assumption that larger models bring any measurable benefit in the long term. there's a point where its not worth paying the expense of a bigger model and we dont know where that will be as both, models and hardware improves.
we do know however where evolution is at right now with our brains, but thats probably not comparable - yet the only thing I can see to make any kind of prediction at all
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
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
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.
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.
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
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