GamingChairModel

It's fun when your laptop decides to do this kind of nonsense from inside your laptop bag, smothering itself in its own heat.

Sam Altman is in the singularity, in that he is now convinced LLMs are smarter than him

I'm reminded of a quote that used to always come up when I was studying cryptography. Bruce Schneier would always remind people that it's easy to design an encryption scheme that you can't break. But it's hard to design an encryption scheme that nobody else can break, either.

It is a good reminder that there needs to be a degree of intellectual humility by those who want to design big systems that affect the whole world.

They can't close on the Warner deal yet (court ordered the deal be paused for 28 days to consider blocking it), and if the courts hold up the merger for a few months, and Oracle stock plummets based on their bad investments, the Ellisons' personal guarantee on the purchase price might not be enough to actually complete the merger.

I don't think it's very likely, but I can dream, at least for now.

Yeah, last I saw this, it was revealed that it was actually properly cantilevered and the homeowner thought it would be funny to shove some thin boards underneath as a joke.

It'll only make a difference during the times in which it is being hit by a beam that wouldn't otherwise hit the earth, since whatever it reflects will be offset by some shadow behind it. I wonder if, as a matter of orbital mechanics, it would be possible to make the satellite orbit in such a way so that it never casts a shadow and is always in the sunlight.

"Technical debt" is a phrase that was invented to explain the phenomenon in a way that bean-counting business bosses could understand: we can do it this way in a way that costs us less today but will incur a debt that will slow us down in the future. It was always an attempt to quantify the concept in a way that we have to think about tradeoffs between our current resources and our future resources.

the growth itself is hella juiced because the GPUs are only relevant for about 3 years till the new ones are out and make more AI for less power. And they depreciate them over 7 years. More than twice as long as they can or should use the GPUs for.

We don't actually know this for sure, yet. I had expected the A100 generation (released in 2020) to no longer be profitable to run by now, but the backlog in new data centers being turned on and the high demand from Anthropic and OpenAI still leaves those chips useful for inference. You can rent those 2020 chips out today at some price above what they cost to continue running (300W, so electricity prices of USD $0.20 per kWh would translate into about 6 cents per hour. Prevailing spot prices appear to be about $2/hour right now.

But just because I was wrong on 2020 chips, originally sold for about $15,000 in a low interest rate environment, doesn't mean that I'm wrong about 2024 chips, the B100s that use 1000W and were sold for $35,000, requiring a ton more specialized cooling, power, and network infrastructure. Or the 2026 R100s that use 2000W, and whose prices I can't seem to find published anywhere, but were set after the memory companies basically locked in their record breaking prices for their HBM. That's an unsustainable path and at some point, data centers start struggling to find users willing to pay the bare minimum necessary to continue turning a profit on GPU usage.

I doubt the 2024 chips stay in service to 2031. And I'm really, really skeptical that the 2026 chips stay in service to 2033, especially after NVIDIA switches to yearly release cycles next year.

Fable 5 spawning a herd of Codex 5.6 Sol to write metal shaders.

Fable is Anthropic's current flagship LLM model (Mythos) with safeguards/restrictions intended to prevent it from writing malware. Version 5 is the latest, released in June, briefly banned by the US Government, and then made available again on July 1.

Codex is OpenAI's coding-oriented interface for interacting with OpenAI's models. ChatGPT Sol is the most powerful flagship model, and version 5.4 released on July 9.

Metal is Apple's programming interface for Apple's GPUs, and is common to iPhone/iPad/Mac.

Shaders are program functions that set up tasks for a GPU to process visual output, like those that calculate how light interacts with colorful objects of varying reflectivity, or how a house should look when viewed through some fog, etc.

The original post describes what is now a relatively common workflow: tell Anthropic's most powerful model to manage some cheaper models to do specific tasks and put the output together into something that can be used. As the post shows, it doesn't always work. And when it fails, it can do so in a very expensive way.

But it isn't encoding knowledge, it's encoding word correlations.

I'm saying that humans do this a lot, too. Qualitatively, it's different, in that this particular batch of frontier LLMs will get things wrong in ways that most human brains wouldn't, but as a category of error it's not unique to LLMs.

I know a ton of facts that I learned only through reading, and have no actual firsthand knowledge/experience or ability to test it: Jupiter is larger than Saturn, the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period was high in oxygen, cigarettes cause cancer, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, the capital of Norway is Oslo. At best, I can cross reference other sources and see that things are consistent with each other. Is my belief in those facts "knowledge," or is it merely recognizing from my training data that those particular words can validly be presented in that order?

If you ask average people on the street whether FAT32 is a good filesystem for a 64GB removable drive, most of them won't know, but there are a handful of bullshitters who might confidently parrot back things they can Google but not understand. That's part of the human condition, too.

I'm by no means an AI booster/enthusiast. I suspect LLMs/transformers are actually a dead end, and expect the upcoming crash to be economically and financially devastating to the tech and financial sectors. But I also have a pretty dim view of human intelligence, too, and see way too many parallels in LLMs as bullshit artists to humans as bullshit artists, too.

It modifies the prompt, aka the input, not the output. It is smuggling 3 bits of secret user/session data in a wrapper that doesn't look like it contains that data. As the article explains:

So the marker becomes part of the system context sent to the model.

This is a normal timestamp on a prompt:

Today's date is 2026-07-11.

But if your system timezone is a Chinese mainland timezone, it looks like:

Today's date is 2026/07/11.

Then, if your base URL includes a keyword like "deepseek," it silently replaces the apostrophe from a ' to a ʼ:

Todayʼs date is 2026-07-11.

Or if the base URL has one of the domains on the list, like any .cn domain, it replaces the apostrophe with another apostrophe character:

Today’s date is 2026-07-11.

And if it has both a URL and a keyword on the watchlist, the prompt context includes:

Todayʹs date is 2026-07-11

That's 3 bits of information: does this system have a mainland Chinese time zone, does the base URL contain a known keyword (associated with Chinese AI competitors) or a known domain (associated with mainland China or its major tech companies). And it sneaks it on by without making it obvious.

That's steganography.

up to 150kW at full load.

That's the last generation. They're moving from Blackwell to Rubin chips now, and the 72-GPU Rubin servers use up to 230 kW.

The typical residential connection in the U.S. has a 24 to 48 kW electrical connection. A block of houses might not have enough power infrastructure to power just one of these server racks.

It's that they are trying to use statistics to encode entire thought processes into hidden variables from conversation snippets. They want to use statistics to go from many individual interactions to a large model, and then use that model to predict individual interactions again.

Has it been shown that the human brain doesn't model the world in a similar way, though? A huge portion of human knowledge is both stored and transmitted in the form of language. Lots of human knowledge also follows the garbage in, garbage out theory, where you can have entire areas of knowledge that aren't actually true but might be internally consistent, at least within certain scopes: conspiracy theories, belief in the supernatural, entire academic disciplines built on a religion or theology that not everyone believes, etc. Or even world building in fiction, the words on a page can be enough to convey ideas such that it "tricks" human brains into filling in the gaps so that they internally see a rich, fleshed out world that is entirely fictional and where specific details might not find strong direct support in the underlying text.

it has no concept of correctness

But statistical weight on what is more or less likely to be correct still makes a difference to objective quality of the outputs. If the model weights are trained on the reality that high quality university texts describe something and reflect some sort of underlying model of what is described using language, then can't the model itself learn as much as a human could from those words on a page?

All models are wrong, but some can be useful. And different models have different quality in different domains. So although I don't believe LLMs will overtake the hump of getting ahead of human knowledge, I also don't believe that any given LLM can be evaluated on quality, and that Facebook's LLMs are significantly behind other LLMs we see.

And that maybe a huge part of it is its internal process of preparing the model to evaluate the quality of its inputs, such that the output it produces can also score high on quality.