Of course, that’s what I’m saying. Physical constraints of hardware mean there’s a limit to how much further (read: larger in terms of working memory footprint, because that’s how they’re getting “better” and better “frontier” models) development can continue until a more dense component comes along.

Every singularity a sigmoid.

I meant that simply making models bigger might not actually make them more capable. So even if you had unlimited hardware to play with, you might have to find a different approach.

I'm not sure Chinese labs are even going in the same direction as the AI projects in the US. They're working to see what they can do with a (more) reasonable amount of buildout, rather than building data centers from horizon to horizon.

Also, the Chinese are motivated by seeing what AI can do for a larger society. American AI systems are being refined automation and instruments of control, specifically military and national security interests.

Essentially, the US industry is trying to get AI to train a gun on the entire US population.

It might also be that Altman and Musk are deliberately lying, intentionally feigning agreement to encourage other models to slow down while they quietly ramp up development.

It seems all the US models want their AI to be the one that becomes hostile, escapes confinement and attempts to dominate the world.

(In reality, they want their own AI to be the one that is able to obediently dominate the world, which is just as bad a scenario for the rest of us.)

I expect more efficient LLMs to come out of China, who has turned to the AI-as-software model (contrast the AI-as-service model in the US).

i'd say that'd be a worse development for humanity if it ends up obeying the epstein reich

I don't see how anything they do can possibly affect what Chinese labs are doing. And that's the only alternative to American labs right now. So, who are they going to convince exactly?

Oh they definitely aren't, there's an interview with Alibaba Cloud founder where he discusses the direction in China. Basically, the goal is to find useful niches for this tech early on, then iterate and improve. They're not chasing AGI or trying to make one model to rule them all. That said thoough, the capabilities of Chinese models in the same domains where American ones shine are very close as well. So, I do expect that Chinese models will catch up and start surpassing American ones on their own turf before long. I'm also expecting that the trend will shift towards running smaller and local models for most things because you just don't need a giant model to do most tasks.

That was kind of why I asked. I don't know enough about that world, but it seems like as soon as ink is on paper then whatever company signed on to build it starts baking their profits into their corporate calculations and planning for staffing, etc. I'm sure lawyers know all that stuff going into those types of talks and baked penalties into the contracts (or whatever). But can you just "oops, our bad" out of buying up so much of the world's expected RAM supply, so much of the property (some through eminent domain), so much cooling and energy capacity, signing construction contracts, etc, and walk off? That risk is sitting somewhere, and with NASDAQ futures only being down 1.25% as of right now I'm not sure what to think.

But we're living in the future, so I'm sure it'll wind up being the local municipality catching hell for it. All the tax breaks they paid for companies to bring in "jobs" won't amount to anything, and the land will all have been acquired.

It's possible they are going to push the chinese labs to do the same. Doubtful it will happen. So they'll go back developing AI and pretend nothing happened

There is clearly a push coming from these companies in the past month to present AI as something extremely dangerous. The way I see it, it's just marketing for the industry to keep the grift bubble going a while longer still: (1) there's no such thing as bad press, (2) if it's dangerous it must also be good. IMO public statements like this is just another element in that marketing campaign.

Maybe the bubble is closer to bursting than I imagine and they're trying to stretch it out until the US midterm elections end.

I suspect in reality it's a combination of all those reasons, probably in different amounts for all three.

I doubt the Chinese companies will comply, even if they agree on the surface. Whoever releases the most powerful model when the truce ends, will have the advantage. If anything, research and training will continue, releases will slow down.

They have no leverage over Chinese labs, and China has every incentive to continue developing this tech.

The money ran out and they need an excuse.

The bond market turning means they can't borrow money cheaply anymore. They are looking for an excuse to reduce capex.

They must realize by now that they have no business model viable enough to repay the money they burned for the last two years, and if they are given an excuse to stop, they can tell their investors they are not responsible for the absence of any ROI.

This isn't cartel behavior at all

I'm looking forward to when hardware gets cheap enough to try Qwen 3.8

They already are, DeepSeek/GLM/Qwen are great models and can run on 2 DGX Sparks

The nature of a bubble means that the longer you go the more likely it actually is. And this is a bubble I frankly can't wait to pop.

Significant portions of Lemmy are turning into debate bro bro hreads on AI and its relevance.