Can you not use PAL MCP for this? Have one top agent as controller etc? It's not ideal but it feels like the space of multi agent stuff is evolving ... I notice that there are a lot of posts on hn about these things so we are trying to do the same thing really.
It's nice to see someone else going mad, even deeper down the well.
I don't known the details but I was wondering why people aren't "just" writing chat venues any commns protocols for the chats? So the fundamental unit is a chat that humans and agents can be a member of.
You can also have DMs etc to avoid chattiness.
But fundmantally if you start with this kind of madness you don't have a strict hierarchy and it might also be fun to see how it goes.
I briefly started building this but just spun out and am stuck using PAL MCP for now and some dumb scripts. Not super content with any of it yet.
Thank you for saying this. I often find this "glib" explains of ML stuff very frustrating as a human coming from an Applied Math background. It just makes me feel a bit crazy and alone to see what appears to be a certain kind of person saying "gosh" at various "explanations" when I just don't get it.
Obviously this is beautiful as art but it would also be useful to understand how exactly these visualizations are useful to people who think they are. Useful to me means you gain a new ability to extrapolate in task space (aka "understanding").
Everyone should be simply posting algorithmic content to Facebook. Screenshots, etc not giving them your own life stuff imo. We need to push back on personalized feeds. Share a high percentage of what you see so that there is a digital commons and not just some island for each person.
Social media platform used to be less about passive consumption.
I would be curious to know if the treatment of statues in terms of "making them ugly and ridiculous to the point of being insulting" is roughly uniform across the different historical cultures being treated to this "reconstruction" procedure.
i.e. is there evidence that there is comfort in trolling using Roman or Greek vs Assyrian, Nubian etc. Or do they just like to make everything bright and blocky.
I can't know for sure. For me, it's just the "eyeball method" of comparing HN and different subreddits on Reddit.
As to how I (or anyone) could show this, here are a few example questions:
1. How many examples of stealthy but otherwise blatant promotion do you see in the comments? Not every astroturfing campaign will be successful or original, so you'd be able to notice some patterns. Plus, HN is already commercially oriented, and there's the "Show HN" option, so it reduces the incentives for astroturfing.
2. Alternatively, how much controversy is there around the specific type of forum? For some subreddits, for example, you'd be able to see counter-subreddits popping up when participants feel the mods are abusing their power to promote one type of opinion.
3. Is a certain type of political/brand-related opinion or interpretation always at the top of your comment feed? For example, if upvotes determine the order of the comments, do you consistently see fewer critical comments on things that you'd expect the community to react to in different ways.
4. Do you consistently see some contributors having more power in discussions over others? Other than the mods, obviously. If this is the case, karma (i.e., number of upvotes) often has more value.
I'd be shocked if it were because the owners now this is a fragile thing and one word from Dan or Tom that this is or was the case and half the participants here would walk. The owners are more than likely well aware of that risk and are not going to destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Check out the treatment PG (and Garry Tan) got in the thread about defending YC's effective investment into Installmonetizer for a good example of news.ycombinator.com's response to such crap.
The piece denies the existence of problems though.
It starts of with enragment and denailism.
The piece is the polarization.
"Diversify your information" in no way cancels single events and single counter examples.
The idea that ingesting more diversified information will bring back the lives of dead children and delete what people have done and said is ludicrous.
The problem is that a certain kind of "intellectual" does not understand how constantly pivoting or turning to statistical aggregates to avoid the discussion around a single intervention is basically a vector of attack on a system.
To stay sane, one must parse data. Literally attempt to gather data from the government. Literally take notes tracking the incoherence of the media narratives. But then you will find that merely describing reality is enough to trigger certain types of people now into frothing mania.
If you think you are intelligent you MUST realize that social media is going to do importance sampling on the things they find usefull to the business.
The defense against importance sampling is to abandon experiential aggregates entirely and focus on factless truths like incoherent, or single examplars that are enough to prove your point or raise a grievance.
Focus on counter-examples. Focus on definitti style incoherence. Live in the meta.
There is a lot of bubbliness sure but some of the rhetoric is a bit sloppy. Like "swapping money back and forth" arguments is literally was economies and specializing results in.
The debt securitization could be an issue but one thing that stands out to me is the if GPUs are really being used as the lein or collateral, these are fundamentally depreciating assets and are marked as such even if the depreciation rates are slightly wrong.
Any new tech that renders current build out could dramatically hit this loans of course.
>if GPUs are really being used as the lein or collateral, these are fundamentally depreciating assets and are marked as such even if the depreciation rates are slightly wrong.
As long as the initial value of a blackwell chip derived from correctly forecast and discounted cash flow is sound, this is correct. On the other hand, if the initial value is a function of scarcity/demand and high manufacturing cost that's wildly detatched from actual returns then 'could be an issue' is a significant understatement.
> even if the depreciation rates are slightly wrong.
The TFA cites a linked study which states "CoreWeave, for example, depreciates its GPUs over six years" which is way more than 'slightly wrong'. Just mapping that backward, 2020's hot new data center GPU was the A100 and they are just reaching their 5th year of service. How many large customers are lining up to pay top dollar to rent one of those 5 year-olds for the next 12 months? For most current workloads I think A100s are already net negative to keep operating in terms of opportunity cost. That power, cooling and rack space are more profitably allocated toward 2023's now mid-life H100 GPUs.
The rate of data center GPU progress has accelerated significantly in the last five years. I hardly know anything about AI workloads but even I know that newer GPU capabilities like FP8 are recent discoveries which can deflate the value of older GPUs almost overnight. With everyone now hunting for those optimization shortcuts, it's foolish to think more won't be discovered soon. The odds that this year's newly installed H200 GPUs will keep generating significant rental fees for 72 months are, IMHO, vanishingly small. Over a trillion dollars of loans have been secured by assets actually worth maybe half the claimed value. It's like 2009 sub-prime mortgages all over again.
Yes, I think it's worth getting details ... like my mental model is that everything within 2x is sort of reasonable error. Looking for 10x errors and cliff edges like in the 2007 crisis where I think a good anecdote is like default prob assumptions being 2% and then realized to 30% (15x).
Is 15x error in realized GPU + the debt AFTER INFLATION? I suppose but feels less likely except in some tail scenarios that have other interesting properties.
This doesn't mean that there isn't a significant possibility of market correction due to other factors but the GPU factor just seems medium sized compared to other scenarios historically. Am I missing anything in the 1st order thinking?
Insane question, asked for the purposes of discussion: Would it make sense if those GPUs were top-of-the-line for years? Like if TSMC were destroyed?
Even then, I don't understand why being a landlord to the place were AI is trained would be financially exciting... Wouldn't investing in NVIDIA make a lot more sense?
Anything involving what sounds like genetics often gets blocked. It depends on the day really but try doing something with ancestral clusters and diversity restoration and the models can be quite "safety blocked".
reply