Meanwhile, I deleted my Windows partition (even though I paid for it, damn OEM tricks) and feel better for it https://lemmy.world/comment/12818969

So if you are genuinely worried about this, don’t.

First because, as numerous persons already clarified, researchers here are breaking deprecated cryptography.

It’s a bit like taking toothpicks and opening a lock while the locks used in your modern car is very different. Yes, it IS actually interesting but the same technique does not apply in practice, only in principle.

Second because IF in principle there IS a path to radically grow in power, there are already modern cryptography techniques which are resistant to scaling the power of quantum computers. Consequently it is NOT just about small the key is, but also HOW that key is made, what are the mathematical foundations on which a key is made, and can be broken.

Anyway for a few years now there has been research, roughly matching the interest in quantum computers, to what is called post-quantum encryption, or quantum resistant encryption. Basically the goal of the research is to find new ways to make keys that are very cheap to generate and verify, literally with something as cheap and non powerful as the chip in your credit card, BUT practically impossible to “crack” for a computer, even a quantum computer, even a powerful one. The result of that on-going research are schemes like Kyber, FALCON, SPHINCS+, etc which answer such requirements. Organizations like NIST in the US verify that the schemes are actually without flaws and the do recommendations.

So… all this to say that a powerful quantum computer is still not something that breaks encryption overall.

If you are worried TODAY, you can even “play” with implementations like https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/oqs-demos and setup a server, e.g Apache, and a client, e.g Chromium, so that they can communicate using such schemes.

Now practically speaking if you are not technically inclined or just want to bother, you can “just” use modern software, e.g Signal, which last year https://signal.org/blog/pqxdh/ announced that they are doing just that on your behalf.

You can finally expect all actors, e.g hosts like Lemmy, browsers like Firefox, that you use daily to access content to gradually both integrate post-quantum encryption but also gradually deprecate older, and thus risky, schemes. In fact if you try to connect today to old hardware via e.g ssh you might find yourself forced to accept older encryption. This very action is interesting because it does show that over the years encryption changes, old schemes get deprecated and replace.

TL;DR: cool, not worried though even with a properly powerful quantum computer because post-quantum encryption is being rolled out already.

What this show is a total lack of originality.

AI is not new. Open-source is not new. Putting two well known concepts together wasn’t new either because… AI has historically been open. A lot of the cutting edge research is done in public laboratories, with public funding, and is published in journals (sadly often behind paywall but still).

So the name and the concept are both unoriginal.

A lot of the popularity gained from OpenAI by using a chatbot is not new either. Relying on always larger dataset and benefiting from Moore’s law is not new either.

So I’m not standing on any side, neither this person nor the corporation.

I find that claiming to be “owning” common ideas is destructive for most.

To consider related to evaluation of said hardware, cf https://lemmy.ml/post/20849010/14003579

This is the market place, brah.

…

Free market capitalism

then talk about subsidies or non capitalist country controlling the currency, markets, VCs, etc.

What does that even mean?

If you were implying that I said being funded by Alphabet/Google was a good thing then let me be explicit, I did NOT say that nor believe it to be the case. Now, once again, cf my actual comment about pragmatic better alternative we can rely on and support today. If you meant to suggest better and are supporting that, please do share.

I thought saying

contribute however they can up to their own capabilities

was actually very clear but seems I wasn’t clear enough so that means… literally doing ANYTHING except only criticizing. That can mean being an open-source developer, yes, but that can also means translation, giving literally 1 cent, etc. It means doing anything at all that would not ONLY be saying “this is good, but it’s not good enough” without doing actually a single thing to change, especially while actually using another free of charge browser that is funded by advertisement. Honestly if that’s not clear enough I’m not sure what would be … but please, do ask again I will genuinely try to be clearer.

I hope everybody criticizing the move either do not use products from Mozilla or, if they do, contribute however they can up to their own capabilities. If you don’t, if you ONLY criticize, yet use Firefox (or a derivative, e.g. LibreWolf) or arguably worst use something fueled by ads (e.g. Chromium based browsers) then you are unfortunately contributing precisely to the model you are rejecting.

Indeed, AKA the OpenAI playbook.

As per usual, in order to understand what it means we need to see :

• performance benchmark (A100 level? H100? B100? GB200 setups?)
• energy consumption (A100 performance level and H100 lower watt? the other way around?)
• networking scalability (how many cards cards can be interconnected for distributed compute? NVLink equivalents?)
• software stack (e.g can it run CUDA and if not what alternatives can be used?)
• yield (how many die are usable, i.e. can it be commercially viable or is it R&D still?)
• price (which regardless of possible subsidies would come from yield)
• volume (how many cards can actually be bought, also dependent on yield)

Still interesting to read after announcements, as per usual, and especially who will actually manufacture them at scale (SMIC? TSMC?).

PS: full disclosure, I still believe self-hosting AI is interesting, cf my notes on it https://fabien.benetou.fr/Content/SelfHostingArtificialIntelligence but that doesn’t mean AGI can be reached, even less that it’d be “soon”. IMHO AI itself as a research field is interesting enough that it doesn’t need grandiose claims, especially not ones leading to learned helplessness.

Read few months ago, warmly recommended. Basically on self selection bias and sharing “impressive” results while ignoring whatever does not work… then claiming it’s just the “beginning”.

I haven’t seriously read the article for now unfortunately (deadline tomorrow) but if there is one thing that I believe is reliable, it’s computational complexity. It’s one thing to be creative, ingenious, find new algorithms and build very efficient processors and datacenters to make things extremely efficient, letting us computer things increasingly complex. It’s another though to “break” free of complexity. It’s just, as far as we currently know, is impossible. What is counter intuitive is that seemingly “simple” behaviors scale terribly, in the sense that one can compute few iterations alone, or with a computer, or with a very powerful set of computers… or with every single existing computers… only to realize that the next iteration of that well understood problem would still NOT be solvable with every computer (even quantum ones) ever made or that could be made based on resources available in say our solar system.

So… yes, it is a “stretch”, maybe even counter intuitive, to go as far as saying it is not and NEVER will be possible to realize AGI, but that’s what their paper claims. It’s a least interesting precisely because it goes against the trend we hear CONSTANTLY pretty much everywhere else.

It’s a classic BigTech marketing trick. They are the only one able to build “it” and it doesn’t matter if we like “it” or not because “it” is coming.

I believed in this BS for longer than I care to admit. I though “Oh yes, that’s progress” so of course it will come, it must come. It’s also very complex so nobody else but such large entities with so much resources can do it.

Then… you start to encounter more and more vaporware. Grandiose announcement and when you try the result you can’t help but be disappointed. You compare what was promised with the result, think it’s cool, kind of, shrug, and move on with your day. It happens again, and again. Sometimes you see something really impressive, you dig and realize it’s a partnership with a startup or a university doing the actual research. The more time passes, the more you realize that all BigTech do it, across technologies. You also realize that your artist friend did something just as cool and as open-source. Their version does not look polished but it works. You find a KickStarter about a product that is genuinely novel (say Oculus DK1) and has no link (initially) with BigTech…

You finally realize, year after year, you have been brain washed to believe only BigTech can do it. It’s false. It’s self serving BS to both prevent you from building and depend on them.

You can build, we can build and we can build better.

Can we build AGI? Maybe. Can they build AGI? They sure want us to believe it but they have lied through their teeth before so until they do deliver, they can NOT.

TL;DR: BigTech is not as powerful as they claim to be and they benefit from the hype, in this AI hype cycle and otherwise. They can’t be trusted.

I… agree but isn’t then contradicting your previous point that innovation will come from large companies if they only try to secure monopolies rather than genuinely innovate? I don’t understand from that perspective who is left to innovate if it’s neither research (focusing on publishing, even though having the actual novel insight and verifying that it does work), not the large companies… and startups don’t get the funding either. Sorry if you mentioned it but I’m now confused as what is left.

They just provide the data. They can question the methodology or even provide another report with a different methodology but if the data is correct (namely no fabricated) then it’s not up to them to see how it’s being used. The user can decide how they define startup, i.e which minimum size, funding types, funding rounds, etc. Sharing their opinion on the startup landscape is unprofessional IMHO. They are of course free to do so but to me it doesn’t question the validity of the original report.

Research happens through university, absolutely, and selling products at scale through large companies, but that’s not innovation. Innovation is bringing new products, that is often the result of research yes, to market. Large companies tends to be innovative by buying startups. If there are no startups coming from research coming from universities to buy, I don’t see how large companies, often stuck in the “innovator dilemma”, will be able to innovate.

Thanks for linking to criticism but can you highlight which numbers are off? I can see things about ByteDance, Ant group, Shein but that’s irrelevant as it’s not about the number of past success, solely about the number of new funded startups. Same as the CEO of ITJUZI sharing his opinion, that’s not a number.

Edit: looks totally off, e.g “restaurants, in a single location, such as one city, you could immediately tell that there were large numbers of new companies.” as the article is about funding, not a loan from the bank at the corner of the street.

OK… unable to argue, blocked.

Thanks for the in depth clarification and sharing your perspective.

this is a good development

Keeping finance in check is indeed important so I also think it’s good.

What about the number of funded startups though and the innovative products they would normally provide customers? Do you believe the measures taken will only weed out bad financiers or will it also have, as a side effect, to bring less products and solutions out? Does it mean research will remain academic but won’t necessarily be commercialized or even scaled? If you believe it will still happen, how? Through state or regional funding and if so can you please share such examples that grew for the last 5 years?