I mean, it does feel like we could pause here for a few years, just to give everyone time to adapt to what the current models are capable of. We've seen back-sliding with model releases (anecdotally, but maybe there's published research?) as well. A new model isn't always a "better" model, for a particular task.
If these companies (and countries) believe that they're in an "arms race" with LLMs, then it may be extremely sane to have regulators step in and let all the engines cool down for a bit. Seems like international agreements to pause development will be necessary as well, otherwise the US companies will just say, "but China ...".
Does anyone else here feel the same way? I think most folks default to a kind of cliched, "you can't stop progress" stance. I'd be happy to see more discussion on this topic.
Maybe we could find agreement in the idea that the USA and Russia agreeing to halt nuclear weapons testing was a good thing. Seems like there's a bit of precedent here for cooler heads to prevail, which benefits us all.
I’d say the problem is that, at least in the US, the government was conceived as a democratic republic, but private enterprise wasn’t required to follow the same conceits, and so all our corporations behaved more like small dictatorships. Now that our corporations are megacorporations, and the government has lost the upper hand, the common people are at the mercy of these dictatorships. There’s no reason for Apple or Google to cede any control that they’ve already established, and we only see them grabbing more and more control as time goes by. Until the government regains the upper-hand, and begins to work again on behalf of actual people (with heartbeats), the firmware in our phones will continue to do the bidding of its true owner. Or if maybe, there’s a revolution or something. Maybe we could take public ownership of the phone lines and cell towers. Fat chance, huh?
What if a single email cost $0.001 cent to send, and it was paid to the recipient? For $10, you could send 10,000 emails. For recipients, every 1,000 emails they get is a dollar in their wallet. You’d need something like a blockchain for this to work because the traditional payment processors still haven’t figured out micropayments.
> What if a single email cost $0.001 cent to send, and it was paid to the recipient? For $10, you could send 10,000 emails. For recipients, every 1,000 emails they get is a dollar in their wallet.
I'm not sure you realize your proposal's only contribution is to worsen spam. You are unwittingly creating an incentive for email providers to lift anti-abuse filters and to maximize the volume of spam delivered to you.
If snail mail cost $0.001 per recipient people would be getting much, much more junkmail. Likewise, if e-mail cost as much as even bulk snail mail, there'd be much less spam.
Some sort of payment scheme is really the best, most durable option. The problem of mailing-lists and personal correspondence could be solved by an exclusion mechanism where the recipient effectively whitelists senders, explicitly or implicitly (e.g. whitelist a replying-sender automatically if a recipient initiates a conversation).
The problem with a payment scheme is that spammers (who make money by spamming) will happily pay as a cost of doing business (or negotiate discounts/deals), but Joe User might just look at the cost and say, "you know what, maybe I'll send this as SMS instead of E-mail."
So the end result will be more spam and fewer legit E-mails.
I've wondered if it cost $10 to get through my email box the first two times what they would mean.
Hormozi could charge $1,000 to get into his read box.
We could refund people, add them to a whitelist - and return a 405? payment required by default and things change in interesting ways when the amount is variable.
There are platforms based on this idea: pay to reach a public person’s inbox, often with guaranteed responses (“guaranteed” as in “you get a response or you money back”). For example: https://mypublicinbox.com/en/
The 15% number is based on two runs from the ./experiment folder, on an instance from the SWE Bench Pro benchmark. I picked two trajectory logs, from the pro_pilot_openlibrary_haiku_v2 folder, that I consider to be representative of the token savings one can expect. There's huge variance just between individual runs of the same model on the same instance, though, so it's somewhat difficult (and expensive, at API rates) to cut through the noise. But I ran over 80 trials, and I believe that number is accurate.
And I'm publishing the "token science" research in the repo itself, so anyone who's curious about it can review the logs and inspect the python scripts that I used. And if someone out there has the time, inclination, and money, to run some of those experiments themselves, it'd be great to get consensus on some of those results.
And if you'd like to share feedback directly, rather than publicly, my email is on my profile page.
If these companies (and countries) believe that they're in an "arms race" with LLMs, then it may be extremely sane to have regulators step in and let all the engines cool down for a bit. Seems like international agreements to pause development will be necessary as well, otherwise the US companies will just say, "but China ...".
Does anyone else here feel the same way? I think most folks default to a kind of cliched, "you can't stop progress" stance. I'd be happy to see more discussion on this topic.
Maybe we could find agreement in the idea that the USA and Russia agreeing to halt nuclear weapons testing was a good thing. Seems like there's a bit of precedent here for cooler heads to prevail, which benefits us all.