62 Comments

User's avatar
MagnusHambleton's avatar

If you want a cleaned up version of the story about the two doors, Nathan wrote one here https://open.substack.com/pub/nathanpmyoung/p/pick-a-door-ill-judge-you

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

Thanks, updated link.

Expand full comment
MagnusHambleton's avatar

Whoops sorry I meant it’s an edited version with a diff ending - Nathan rewrote it to make it better, but that obvs also removes a bit of the ”this was pure AI” magic

Expand full comment
Mark Roulo's avatar

From the Substrate 'our-purpose' page:

"Over the past several years, we have invested in building out our supply chain and continue to increase our vertical integration, enabling us to move at speeds usually unimaginable in the semiconductor industry. More recently, we completed our first in-house production-quality 300 mm wafer lithography tool, which operates at the extreme G-forces required to meet the throughput of a leading-edge fab."

https://substrate.com/our-purpose

"extreme G-forces required to meet the throughput of a leading-edge fab" ?????

Note also that getting x-ray lithography to work isn't the problem. Getting x-ray lithography to work at scale (100+ wafers/hour) and at cost is the problem.

Expand full comment
Peperulo's avatar

I searched for "lithography stage acceleration" and this was the first result:

https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/measuring-accuracy

> A lithography system (scanner) must work 24/7 with sub-nanometer precision, while accelerating mechatronic modules at incredible speeds. For example, the reticle stage accelerates at close to 16g and the wafer stage to 7g. That’s more acceleration than a jet fighter.

> It’s not possible to mechanically construct a machine capable of this level of alignment and precision, accelerating at those speeds, and with the level of reliability and repeatability required to make today’s computer chips without the help of in-scanner metrology.

Expand full comment
Yosef's avatar

Re: #27

Yeah. I'm pretty sure this only goes to the Reform/ Reconstructionist/Conservative/Open Orthodox. If you ccount the ultra-orthodox, who are fragmented and informal enough to be basically uncountable, you'd probably get very different numbers.

I don't have enough info on the study methodology, but I would suspect it might be missing the largest Modern Orthodox Rabbinical School, and only include those that accept LGBTQ/female students.

Seems a very shallow bit of analysis.

Expand full comment
Odd anon's avatar

Good guess. From the study:

> Additionally, the number of survey responses from RIETS and other Orthodox institutions—aside from YCT and Maharat—was very small. Because these responses were both limited in number and substantially different from other denominational groups, they could not be reliably weighted to represent their broader populations. As a result, survey respondents ordained through or currently studying at RIETS or other Orthodox institutions outside of YCT and Maharat were excluded from the survey analysis.

So yeah, the "majority of American rabbinical students are now women" conclusion is probably false.

Expand full comment
Yosef's avatar

RIETS is the only rabbinical school that really matters in the American Modern Orthodox world, at least anecdotally. (Other relevant institutions are either affiliated or not actually rabbinical schools.)

So that's a pretty big misrepresentation there.

Expand full comment
Deiseach's avatar

So, the Jewish version of "mainline liberal Protestant churches have lots of female clergy, also LGBT+ friendly"?

Expand full comment
Hannes Jandl's avatar

15. “so it’s not a contradiction that Democrats are against both “advocating for Israel” and “advocating for Palestinians” “

It’s not a contradiction at all. A pox on both their houses is probably the most common sentiment I hear. The position that Hamas is evil and what Israel is doing in Gaza is evil is the simplest.

Expand full comment
Jeff's avatar

#21. There are, at last count, nine candidates running for the Congressional seat. Perhaps three currently are serious contenders. Jami Floyd is one of the nine but (especially as she is not one of the serious contenders) describing her as "Bores' opponent" or the beneficiary of attacks on Bores is inaccurate and misleading.

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

Thanks, I've clarified this.

Expand full comment
Lars Doucet's avatar

How vulnerable are the anti-mosquito drones to predation by cats?

Expand full comment
Swami's avatar

And could cats be added to the President’s security detail? Bomb dogs and drone cats!

Expand full comment
Deiseach's avatar

Do birds predate mosquitos? Get birds to eat any mosquitoes in the zone, get cats to keep the birds from flying out of the zone, get dogs to keep the cats in check!

Expand full comment
Garald's avatar

"I was a little surprised that engineering shifts people right a little" - I wasn't; internships, no?

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

I don't understand this; what role do the internships have?

Expand full comment
Garald's avatar
2hEdited

Exposure to and socialisation in the business world. At least that is what I was told back when I was a postdoc (in pure maths), as an explanation for different attitudes in engineering vs. mathematics/physics. What is more, people in engineering tend to be embedded in environments where they are exposed more to management-side views than labor-side views, especially from people they depend on.

Expand full comment
PS's avatar

21. "wait, multi-billion on one candidate? is that a typo?"

Yes. The Politico article they're quoting from says "million". https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/11/pro-ai-super-pac-targets-ny-democrat-alex-bores-00652148

Expand full comment
Paul Botts's avatar

I don't understand the intention of the writeup at link #1.

Setting aside the factual limitations of the stated premise -- is the essay intended as satire? Is the author trying to discredit the concept of US law assigning to corporations all the same legal rights that persons hold? Mocking the widely-held impression that US law actually does that? Something else?

Expand full comment
gdanning's avatar

Given the typical gross misunderstandings around corporate personhood and the rights appurtenant thereto, it is anyone's guess.

As an aside, I doubt that the ship mentioned in the article was treated as a person. Rather, it was probably an action in rem. https://www.srtflaw.com/in-rem-v-in-personam-in-maritime-law/

Expand full comment
Performative Bafflement's avatar

> Everyone knows AGI could be bad for labor

Re AGI / UBI being bad for labor, I just wrote an economics-grounded post arguing it's going to be great for labor and capitalists alike.

Labor, because we can give a generous $40k - $90k UBI to everyone, capital because returns to capital will at LEAST 2x, and arguably more, because now capital can be directly converted into whatever the highest value labor is.

Also, the fact that we'll be able to counterfeit high-value white collar work first is a "best of all possible worlds" scenario. To a pretty large extent, white collar job holders are capital holders, so they may lose their jobs, but the combo of capital value growth + UBI more than takes care of them, AND makes labor (non capital holders) better off, too.

Physical jobs have much lower margins for companies, contribute notably less to GDP, and would require substantially more hardware / capital expenditures to counterfeit. This is entirely ignoring the fact that robotics is much harder than software for numerous other reasons.

Having ended at a place where we can counterfeit only the highest margin jobs, that generate huge amounts of value both for GDP and the companies with those jobs, and in which the current job-holders are all predominantly capital owners who will largely be covered by company value growth in a much-higher GDP future? It’s so much easier on every front!

Post link here:

https://performativebafflement.substack.com/p/can-ubi-work-yes-with-a-few-reasonable?r=17hw9h

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

The economy has dectupled many times in history. At each of those times, we could have chosen to give people a generous (by the standards of the previous regime) UBI. I agree we will be able to do this again this time, but I don't know how likely I think it is. Yes, there will be many more unemployed people trying to get it. But labor will also have less power than ever. I think Philosophy Bear's argument - that we will either get a capitalist coup or a socialist revolution - is if anything too optimistic; more likely is that every industry argues for an AI ban or subsidies for themselves, the powerful ones end up as the equivalent of longshoremen, and the weak ones are left to fend for themselves for "every minority woman who lost her job to AI on a Friday in March gets a $300 voucher for health insurance during job retraining" style bandaids.

Expand full comment
Performative Bafflement's avatar

> Yes, there will be many more unemployed people trying to get it. But labor will also have less power than ever.

Seriously? The people whose jobs are being counterfeited are high income, connected white collar people. If even as much as 10% of them lost their jobs, you think we're telling them to pound sand, politically?

What if 20%, or 50% lose their jobs? It just seems really obvious to me that the public pressure towards UBI is going to be immense, and that it's much better that it's happening to richer and more connected people first this time, because it vastly increases the chances of substantial UBI actually getting pushed through.

I agree if it were reversed, and robotics were pushing 20% of service sector people out of jobs, they'd probably be screwed, and that's a much darker picture. But we live in that panglossian world where the reverse has happened, and it's going to be connected, well-heeled people whose voices are heard and payed attention to at the forefront of advocating for the massive societal rearrangement that UBI will represent.

Expand full comment
bloom_unfiltered's avatar

Aphantasia question: for questions like "Suppose you walk forwards 20 feet, then turn left and walk 10 feet, then turn 180 degrees and walk forwards 20 feet. What letter of the alphabet have you traced?" - how do aphantasic people answer these questions mentally? I searched a bit online but didn't find any of the answers cleared up my confusion.

Expand full comment
Torches Together's avatar

I'm mostly aphantasic. With this task I'm doing something "visio-spatial" in my mind and don't find it super difficult. It's easier if I imagine physical movements or trace it out with my finger.

I definitely don't "see" a "T" anywhere, though.

Expand full comment
Kveldred's avatar

What's the difference between a visio-spatial mental operation, and a phantasic one? It sounds sort of like they ought to be synonymous.

Whenever I hear about aphantasia, I can't help but think "this is some sort of error in communication—like, people interpret 'mental image' as 'seeing something in front of your eyes as in a hallucination', and then think 'well, that definitely doesn't happen... I guess I can't do mental imagery!"... but probably I'm wrong about this, since it appears to be a well-validated(?) "condition".

Expand full comment
Average Man's avatar

Hypothetically, what kind of guarantees do those embryonic selection companies have? If I use one and 10+ years later my kid has an issue they claim she wouldn't get, or is not as smart as they claim she would be, then what sort of recompense do I get?

I mean, this isn't like fucking up a car or a boat, this is my child. I'm going to want more than money to make amends. Will these companies even be in business in 10+ years?

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

There is no guarantee because this is all probabilistic - they may say that there's a 10% lower chance your child will get problem X, but that still means 90% of the kids who would have gotten it anyway will still get it.

The people who believe it believe it because they've demonstrated that their technology predicts things correctly in existing adults. This is pretty strong evidence, but see https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/suddenly-trait-based-embryo-selection for potential complications.

Expand full comment
Average Man's avatar

I get that it's probabilistic. Still, they're offering a service/product with many claims; there must be some sort of warranty or guarantee of satisfaction to some extent, especially if I'm paying upwards of $50k for this. Maybe they accept returns.

Expand full comment
Sean Bailly's avatar

My best guess regarding Substrate is that it might be like a Ponzi scheme with Thiel and Trump not so much being suckered as being at the top of the pyramid helping to sucker everyone else. Once Thiel and Co. have invested and the government has endorsed it, it's a lot easier to draw in lower information investors.

Expand full comment
Daniel Kokotajlo's avatar

"Every time you take a Waymo, you’re letting an AI control a critical system; every time it chooses to stop at a red light but not a green one, it’s making an “important decision” (if you don’t think this decision is important, consider the consequences of failure)."

Author here. I don't know if we actually disagree--I wouldn't count Waymo decisions as important enough, because only small numbers of lives hang in the balance. What we said was:

"We all believe that current AIs should not be allowed to have autonomous control over critical systems. This includes extreme cases like giving AIs control over data centers, nuclear weapons, tech companies, or government decision making processes."

I can't speak for the AI as Normal Technology / AI Snake Oil authors, but we at AI Futures Project are supportive of self-driving cars and similar tech, and were mostly warning against the much more dangerous things given in the examples (e.g. data centers). Perhaps we should have clarified.

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

I understand that you in fact support Waymo. I just think Waymo support generalizes to allowing AIs to make many important decisions. What I have in mind here is things like the Colorado act which make it hard for companies or organizations to outsource business decisions to AI; I'm worried that as framed it seems to potentially provide support for that. I acknowledge that you specified some extremely bad things like nuclear weapons, and some things which you might have intended to limit to very major cases like government decisions, but I thought the exact phrasing:

> "We all believe that current AIs should not be allowed to have autonomous control over critical systems. This includes extreme cases like..."

...suggested a broader picture than those most extreme cases. Probably this was you guys trying to come up with some framing that covered both the AIANT's broad ban request and your narrow ban request, but I still disagree with my interpretation of the compromise.

Expand full comment
Pat the Wolf's avatar

#15 and #33

It's funny that the two things Democrats hate the most are billionaires and podcasters, yet Newsom seems to be the frontrunner.

I know he's not actually a billionaire, but I'd consider him billionaire adjacent. At the very least he should get dinged -9 for being wealthy.

Expand full comment
orthonormal's avatar

Re: 31, the proper counterfactual is "how popular would the Dems be on COVID issues if both the Dems and the GOP had fewer own goals during that time", and I think in that universe the Dems would be in the lead. (They had more own goals, it seems to me, in the sense of actions that didn't make any sense given their policy principles.)

Expand full comment
DJ's avatar

One thing that's really hard to untangle is the way partisanship can have a profound effect on what steps the parties take. It's not hard to imagine Trump behaving differently in 2020 (i.e. really strong lockdown policies), and Democrats calling it tyranny.

In 2014, for example, Republicans excoriated Obama on Ebola and Democrats downplayed it.

Expand full comment
Tossrock's avatar

re "we gave China our best chips", the H200s under discussion are actually a generation behind the current SotA, Blackwell. Still bad, though.

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

Thanks, fixed.

Expand full comment
John R Ramsden's avatar

"Lactose-intolerant people who drink milk regularly since childhood develop gut microbiota that can digest milk, but which demand an expensive “tax” in calories."

If this "tax" overshoots and burns more than the calories of the milk consumed then these microbiota sound like promising chemical-free slimming aids. There's probably a downside though, such as the calories being converted to methane and thereby giving rise to copious highly flammable trumps!

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

I don't know for sure, but I think the tax is taken as they digest it, so they can't digest more than 100% of the calories in their energy source.

Expand full comment
Vittu Perkele's avatar

Re #30, I'm mildly aphantasic, in that I can visualize things in my mind but only in a very vague and phantasmal way, but I have a very vivid "mind's ear," and can hear voices and music in my head almost as realistically as if I was actually hearing it. I wonder if there is a tradeoff between these things, or if they're positively correlated? I also wonder about the relation between internal monologue (of which I have a very strong one) and ability to visualize, do they stem from the same thing or is one the result of being a verbal reasoner and the other a result of being a visual reasoner?

Expand full comment
✒️Corentin's avatar

Just to point out the spelling mistake, please tell me when you correct it so that I delete my comment:

8: New revelations on the OpenAI coup from the Musk vs. Altman lawsuit. The effort to remove Altman may have been **let** (obviously it's led) by Mira Murati and Ilya Sutskever...

Otherwise thank you again for your work!

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

Corrected, thanks.

Expand full comment
hnau's avatar
1hEdited

53: Huh, I didn't know that! Stoll isn't just a "scientist"; he has substantial Silicon Valley cred by way of his 1989 book The Cuckoo's Egg. You can be arbitrarily close to the technology and still get predictions about its future course very wrong.

Expand full comment
TGGP's avatar

I read that book as a kid. He notes that his fellow astronomers thought he was a terrible astronomer, but a whiz with computers. When he switched to working with computers his colleagues thought he was lousy at that, but a genius astronomer.

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

Stoll's bio describes him as an astronomer and says he has a PhD in the subject. I think this qualifies as a scientist.

Expand full comment
Deiseach's avatar

2: “Perhaps the most baffling … was the common Kestrel. He was known simply as the Windfucker.”

Mediaeval names were very blunt. Witness all the “Gropecunt Lanes” that got bowdlerised into Grape Lane:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane

As for the bird names, when I was a child, it was “Willie Wagtail” and not just (pied) wagtail.

6: Re: the anti-mosquito drones, they undoubtedly do look very cool. They seem to work by colliding with the mosquitoes (and hence chopping them asunder), though, and someone is going to raise a fuss over cruelty and inhumane killing methods.

10: St. Carlo Acutis (1991 - 2006) is the unofficial patron saint of the Internet and “first millennial saint”. …(H)is sainthood is something of a mystery, with Wikipedia saying that “even those with a deep devotion to him struggle to pinpoint his specific actions that led to his canonisation”, and an Economist article admitting that “nothing in his sparse life story explains that this ordinary-seeming teenage boy is about to become the first great saint of the 21st century”.

First, there are the two miracles necessary for canonisation:

“On 14 November 2019, the Vatican's Medical Council of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints expressed a positive opinion about a miracle in Brazil attributed to Acutis's intercession. In 2020 the Catholic Church recognised the curing of a child's pancreatic disease as a miracle attributed to Acutis's intercession. On the death anniversary of Acutis, Luciana Vianna had taken to Mass her son, Mattheus, who had the congenital defect of an annular pancreas which made eating difficult. Beforehand, she had prayed a novena asking for Acutis's intercession. During the prayer service following Mass, Mattheus kissed the clothing relic of Acutis and asked he should not "throw up as much". Immediately following the Mass, he told his mother that he felt healed and asked for solid foods when they arrived home. Until then, he had been on an all-liquid diet. His doctors subsequently confirmed a normal appearing pancreas by ultrasound. …After a detailed investigation, Pope Francis confirmed the miracle's authenticity in a decree on 21 February 2020, leading to Acutis's beatification.

…On 23 May 2024, Pope Francis recognised a second miracle attributed to the intercession of Acutis. The miracle attributed to his intercession occurred in 2022, when a Costa Rican woman named Valeria Valverde had fallen off her bike in Florence, Italy, and suffered a brain haemorrhage with doctors giving her a low chance of survival. Her mother, Lilliana, prayed for the intercession of Acutis and visited his tomb. The same day, Valverde began to breathe independently again and was able to walk the next day with all evidence of the haemorrhage having disappeared.”

Second, you generally need to look into who is pushing the case for canonisation. Either there’s a local cultus, or some interested party/parties are involved. In this case, it seems to have been the local parish:

“The call for Acutis to be beatified began soon after his death. The Church in Assisi was active in promoting Acutis's cult, the Catholic practice of venerating or showing devotion to a holy individual. Nicola Gori, who authored Carlo Acutis: The First Millennial Saint, served as the postulator for Acutis's beatification process. In this dual role, Gori was responsible for advancing the cause within the Vatican and compiling the necessary documentation.

On 12 October 2012, the sixth anniversary of his death, the Archdiocese of Milan opened his cause for canonisation.”

19: New research analyzes Hitler’s DNA.

Yeah. How sure are we that this genuinely is Hitler’s DNA and that it’s not degraded? Where did they get the sample? Off a sofa?

“The testing was made possible after researchers obtained a sample of Hitler's blood from a piece of material taken from the sofa on which he shot himself.”

I think this is more in the same wheelhouse as all those Discovery channel “Tomb of Jesus/Mary Magdalene/Your Great-Uncle Theobald discovered in site five miles outside Jerusalem” ‘documentaries’ than genuine scientific research. Publicity for the documentary which is yet another in the never-ending stream of “the public can’t get enough about the Nazis” productions.

32: “These are my people? My Volk? Am I supposed to sacrifice life and limb for the salus of this populus? Fuck that. Let them cook, they deserve everything that’s coming to them”

The answer is to put that devotion into Salus Populi Romani 😁

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salus_Populi_Romani

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Zh8d_FqnQ

43: Sam Bankman-Fried’s mother on why she thinks his trial was unfair.

Oh, Sam’s mom thinks he’s didn’t get a fair shake? What a surprise. Also not surprising since she and her pet causes got a ton of money off SBF’s shenanigans, as well as her and Dad getting some nice perks:

From the CTFC filing:

“54. Contrary to such representations and without disclosure to FTX customers, Alameda and FTX comingled funds and freely used FTX customer funds as if they were their own, including as capital to deploy in their own trading and investment activities. On information and belief, Bankman-Fried, his parents, and other FTX and Alameda employees used FTX customer funds for a variety of personal expenditures, including luxury real estate purchases, private jets, documented and undocumented personal loans, and personal political donations.”

From the SEC filing:

“68. Bankman-Fried also used commingled funds from Alameda to make large political donations and to purchase tens of millions of dollars in Bahamian real estate for himself, his parents, and other FTX executives.”

https://worldsleaders.com/bankman-frieds-ftx-parents-bought-bahamas-property-worth-121-million/

“The majority of FTX’s purchases were high-end beachfront properties, including seven condominiums in the pricey resort neighborhood of Albany that cost about $72 million. According to the documents, a unit of FTX purchased these houses to serve as “residence for key employees” inside the organization. Reuters was unable to identify the residents of the units.

Bankman-parents, Fried’s Stanford University law professors Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, are listed as signatories on the papers for another beachfront home in Old Fort Bay, a gated neighborhood that formerly housed a British colonial fort constructed in the 1700s to stave against pirates. One of the paperwork dated June 15 stated that the property is intended to be used as a “vacation residence.”

When questioned by Reuters about why the pair opted to purchase a holiday home in the Bahamas and how it was paid for, a representative for the academics merely indicated that Bankman and Fried had been attempting to return the property to FTX.”

45: The “100 Above The Park” building in St Louis

Huh. Modern architecture that is surprisingly not terrible. I was expecting to hate it, but I like it. Looks vaguely Art Deco inspired, almost like a bouquet rising out of ground level.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0271/2347/files/6395997365_d399c2a71f_b.jpg?2509385242815651011

Expand full comment
TGGP's avatar

Unfortunately, Cliff Stoll's 2010 comment no longer appears to be on the internet. It's quoted in the Wikipedia article, which cites a Boing Boing post, but the comments for that are gone. If you use the Internet Archive for that url, it will just try to load up Disqus and hang. Nor does any post that old appear to be in Boing Boing's read-only BBS that the "Comments" link goes to now.

Expand full comment
Alex Toussaint's avatar

Thanks very much for the featuring and the grant Scott!! On the choice of the White House: we did this video for an internal YC presentation that wasn’t supposed to be public, so the choice was a combination of both 1) fun 2) there was a cheap and very good quality model on cgtrader. Later our contractor got too late for YC timelines, so we went with that video. Can’t complain about the additional buzz! We’ve been able to have the luxury of the choice of investors, and a significant chunk of our cap table is EA-aligned, so we have no plans of getting into defense. The expansion market we found to make VC economics work is now invasive flying species control for agriculture, eg killing codling moths who lay eggs in apple plantations with microdrones rather than insecticide. (Also had the advantage of being a much easier target, both in terms of sonar RCS and max acceleration). Exciting times ahead!

Expand full comment
MotteInTheEye's avatar

Seems like cool technology and I can definitely believe that it works at having a device which can go kill mosquitoes. But I was surprised to see that there was no outcome-focused analysis anywhere I could find on the website. It says that it can patrol 5 acres, but what does that mean? What reduction in mosquito presence does it achieve compared to e.g. UV-light-based traps?

Expand full comment
Meisha's avatar

🙏🏻

Expand full comment
David V's avatar

Re 53: You might better know Clifford Stoll today as the funny old guy who frequently appeared on Numberphile talking about Klein bottles and other topological objects, and has a small business selling glass Klein bottles.

Expand full comment
Compav's avatar

With #39, important to note that is relative to the shift in Natural Sciences, of shifting 0.18 left on a five point self-reported left-right scale. So eyeballing, everything but accounting and finance moves people left overall, but how much depends on the subject.

Expand full comment
Tom B's avatar

Scott, why did you post the picture of "100 Above the Park"? Are you saying, "this is a cool-looking building and we should build more like this"?

(...because if so, I agree.)

Expand full comment
WoolyAI's avatar

Did anyone do the Lighthaven blogging thing and how did it go? I ask because I noticed Ozy posted about every day in November and that seemed like the blogging thing.

Expand full comment
Fred's avatar

I had no idea #2 went beyond Robin Redbreast. That's pretty fun, and I wish it had survived more. We did our own version of it, for rats, when they left the closed restaurants during the pandemic: when we would see a rat scurrying around outside our apartment, that was Pat. Pat the Rat. They were all Pat the Rat.

Expand full comment
Daniel's avatar

29. I am now calling for a complete shutdown on naive utilitarianism until we can figure out what the hell is going on. We need a Manhattan Project for non-Benthamian consequentialism.

Expand full comment
DJ's avatar

Has anyone written an explainer about whether the pardon of Juan Orlando Hernandez has anything to do with Prospera? I've seen people mention it in passing but not a deep dive.

Expand full comment
demost_'s avatar

#12: I have recently seen a talk about exactly that topic of switching out different AIs on the same chip. This is not just a problem with outdated models, it is also a problem in expert systems where you have dozens or hundreds of specialized expert AIs, and for each prompt you decide which of them you ask. (Possibly several.) Those systems already run in the background of modern AIs.

If the expert AIs are not used with the same load all the time, then you frequently need to load/unload some of them into GPUs, which is a very slow operation. It is also not a good option to just have all of them sit in some GPU being idle most of the time, just to be able to serve peak demand.

The solution in the talk was that many of those expert AIs are pretty similar, and the difference can be very much compressed. There are technical problems to be solved -- even if you can compress the diff into a small block, it would still be slow to decompress it and then change all weights a little. But the problems can be solved, and this is what the talk was about.

Expand full comment
Nechninak's avatar

#20:

For the US, you have cities above the national-average line and states below. For Germany, you have three city names above the line and the name of one Bundesland below. Of course you can have all kinds of data dots in this figure, but then shouldn't the removal of the richest region be called the removal of the richest city? The blue and red lines would certainly be further apart if you removed Bavaria instead of Munich.

Expand full comment
antilinear's avatar

Should I be concerned that my closed-eye hallucinations look a lot like the psychedelic videos in 26?

Expand full comment
Slippin Fall's avatar

Sorry, I'm one of these terrible people who comments but rarely reads other people's comments, so excuse me if this a common sentiment, but these monthly link newsletters are one of my favorite joys in life. To have Scott as my curator of the Internet? Pure gold.

Expand full comment

Ready for more?

Cookie Policy

We use cookies to improve your experience, for analytics, and for marketing. You can accept, reject, or manage your preferences. See our privacy policy.