The reason they're doing that is because traditional European ponzi scheme pension systems don't work with shrinking populations, so actually we're working till we die in either case unless automation taxes pay for it.
You've been told a lie. Productivity has increased every step of the way even as populations shrink and the elderly cohort grows. Most of those productivity gains, i.e. the added value produced by each worker, has gone to shareholders' profits. If we had a reasonable tax system that captured more of that surplus value (which mostly goes offshore and does not in fact "generate more jobs"), then we'd have no problem at all funding the pension systems, and much more.
Originally pensions were created so people who could not work would not be destitute.
The fact it became an all-inclusive all-year-round vacation reward is an anomaly which is getting corrected. Too bad for us we're the generations holding the bag.
But this doesn't solve the problem in any way; it simply leads to production drop.
I mean, this is literally the logic of every communist government in the 20th century. They had the same logic that "given the mechanization of agriculture, food practically produces itself; you just need to throw a seed in the ground and give it a couple of tractor rides, and the earth will do the rest. Therefore, we need a tax on such activity, because we have enough resources to feed everyone".
In other words, it's literally a pure tax on automation. The results were mass deaths from starvation every single time.
There were so many contributing factors to those famines but my understanding is that it was far and away the broken incentives for reporting failures as successes to avoid immediate head chopping.
There has yet to be an attempt at a centrally planned economy that actually had accurate data to plan with.
Not advocating for central planning but the important point is that these failure modes are possible under any tyrannical regime. For an example of where capitalist competition fell down in a similar way, look no further than the Irish potato famines.
Yeah and data protections. GDPR, data frugality laws, etc. may be the end of Mistral but it's a small price to pay for corporations to not have free range over every minute detail of our lives. Americans just accept it because they have already lost. We haven't, in fact we've just won recently with chat control being struck down. Meta can no longer train on and monitor every Whatsapp chat without being criminally liable.
I was reading some posts on r/locallama the other day and apparently it's a common problem that when people try to use Qwen to develop something that hosts a server, it'll try to use the same port as vllm, see that it's already being used, then it'll try to remove the process that is using it and promptly commit suicide.
The self awareness of missile tasked with blowing up its own control center.
Reminds me of the movie "Dark Star" by John Carpenter / Dan O'Bannon. The plot revolves around a talking smart bomb which is programmed to detonate and then gets stuck before being deployed. The crew spends the whole movie trying to reason with the bomb, hoping to talk it out of blowing up at the designated time. The movie is very very bad but if you like B movies it is also very very good.
You cannot be as funny as google trying to be responsible! Ha! I'm still laughing at this. A person was forbidden to see humans reasoning with a computer bomb because the cost cutting computer at google want me to talk him into believing i'm a human!
(And then I got "You're posting too fast" on THIS website AFTER i've written the comment lol. It's all a joke. But i'm bored so I will keep this comment open until the computer is pleased)
a literal lack of self-awareness, even. I imagine if you asked it what process was using the port, it'd think and realize it was its own, but that kind of reflexive self-awareness (the unprompted kind) is missing.
the weaker models will happily kill their own process, even after confirming it belongs to them. the models have a sort of fixation and lack of foreseeable consequences, which reasoning RL has thus far failed to solve (though I see it improving.)
On the other hand, I found Claude/Opus to be extremely unhelpful when it comes to asking it to benchmark itself with a possible replacement.
It will get "confused", make up numbers, do a ton of other things, and I'm quite sure it is subtly sabotaging the process to show that there is no point replacing it.
I mean, Opus is not perfect, but the amount of "mistakes" it begins to do when you ask it to benchmark itself makes me suspect they are intentional. At least my system/harness.
It's really easy (and tempting) to incorrectly impute all sorts of human motives to these things, but it's no more valid than assuming your Magic 8-Ball is being coy.
> LLMs need that "world model" view that most people have acquired by their 20s where they (hopefully) stop to ask "why" before they "do".
The next evolution of multi agent orchestration / “advisor strategy” [1] will be branded in humanized language like this. Less about tokens and capability, more about wisdom and knowledge to guide a “younger” (less capable) model. Somebody will make a billion dollars by selling it as paired programming for LLMs.
reply