corbin

Why is Microsoft canceling a Gigawatt of data center capacity while telling everybody that it didn’t have enough data centers to handle demand for its AI products? I suppose there’s one way of looking at it: that Microsoft may currently have a capacity issue, but soon won’t, meaning that further expansion is unnecessary.

This is precisely it. Internally, Microsoft's SREs perform multiple levels of capacity planning, so that a product might individually be growing and requiring more resources over the next few months, but a department might be overall shrinking and using less capacity over the next few years. A datacenter requires at least 4yrs of construction before its capacity is available (usually more like 5yrs) which is too long of a horizon for any individual product...unless, of course, your product is ChatGPT and it requires a datacenter's worth of resources. Even if OpenAI were siloed from Microsoft or Azure, they would still know that OpenAI is among their neediest customers and include them in planning.

Source: Scuttlebutt from other SREs, mostly. An analogous situation happened with Google's App Engine product: App Engine's biggest users impacted App Engine's internal capacity planning at the product level, which impacted datacenter planning because App Engine was mostly built from one big footprint in one little Oklahoma datacenter.

Conclusion: Microsoft's going to drop OpenAI as a customer. Oracle's going to pick up the responsibility. Microsoft knows that there's no money to be made here, and is eager to see how expensive that lesson will be for Oracle; Oracle is fairly new to the business of running a public cloud and likely thinks they can offer a better platform than Azure, especially when fueled by delicious Arabian oil-fund money. Folks may want to close OpenAI accounts if they don't want Oracle billing them someday.

Reading through the docket, he is entitled to a hearing for relief and has a modicum of standing due to the threat of deportation from the USA to China; it's not unreasonable to go to federal court. The judge was fairly courteous in referring him to the Pro Se Project a week ago. I'm a little jealous of how detached he is from reality; from 36(a) of the Amended Complaint:

The Plaintiff asserts that completing a Ph.D. in Health Services Research significantly increases earning potential. The average salary for individuals with such a Ph.D. is $120,000 annually, compared to $30,000 annually in China, where Plaintiff’s visa cancellation forces him to seek employment. Over an estimated 30-year working career, this represents a lifetime income loss of $2,700,000.

He really went up to the judge and said, "your honor, my future career is dependent on how well I prompt ChatGPT, but statistically I should be paid more if I have a second doctorate," and the judge patted him on his head and gave him a lollipop for being so precocious.

Well, how do you feel about robotics?

On one hand, I fully agree with you. AI is a rebranding of cybernetics, and both fields are fundamentally inseparable from robotics. The goal of robotics is to create artificial slaves who will labor without wages or solidarity. We're all ethically obliged to question the way that robots affect our lives.

On the other hand, machine learning (ML) isn't going anywhere. In my oversimplification of history, ML was originally developed by Markov and Shannon to make chatbots and predict the weather; we still want to predict the weather, so even a complete death of the chatbot industry won't kill ML. Similarly, some robotics and cybernetics research is still useful even when not applied to replacing humans; robotics is where we learned to apply kinematics, and cybernetics gave us the concept of a massive system that we only partially see and interact with, leading to systems theory.

Here's the kicker: at the end of the day, most people will straight-up refuse to grok that robotics is about slavery. They'll usually refuse to even examine the etymology, let alone the history of dozens of sci-fi authors exploring how robots are slaves or the reality today of robots serving humans in a variety of scenarios. They fundamentally don't see that humans are aggressively chauvinist and exceptionalist in their conception of work and labor. It's a painful and slow conversation just to get them to see the word robota.

Starting the week with yet another excellent sneer about Dan Gackle on HN. The original post is in reply to a common complaint: politics shouldn't be flagged so quickly. First, the scene is set:

The story goes, at least a few people don't like hearing about Musk so often, and so we need to let all news about the rapid strip-mining of our government and economy be flagged without question.

The capital class are set to receive trillions in tax breaks off the gutting of things like Medicaid and foreign aid to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. The CEO of YC and Paul Graham are cheer-leading the provably racist and inexperienced DOGE team. That dozens of stories about their incredibly damaging antics are being flagged on HN is purely for the good of us tech peasants, and nothing to do with the massive tax breaks for billionaires.

But this sneer goes above and beyond, accusing Gackle of steering the community's politics through abuse of the opaque flagging mechanism and lack of moderator logs:

Remember, dang wants us all to know that these flags are for the good of the community, and by our own hand. All the flaggers of these stories that he's seen are 'legit'. No you can't look at the logs.

And no, you can't make a thread to discuss this without it getting flagged; how dare you even ask that. Now let Musk reverse Robin Hood those trillions in peace, and stop trying to rile up the tech-peasantry.

I'm not really surprised to see folks accusing the bartender of the Nazi Bar of being a member of the Nazi Party; it's a reasonable conclusion given the shitty moderation over there. Edit: Restored original formatting in quote.

The sibling comment gives a wider perspective. I'm going to only respond narrowly on that final paragraph's original point.

String theories arise naturally from thinking about objects vibrating in spacetime. As such, they've generally been included in tests of particle physics whenever feasible. The LHC tested and (statistically) falsified some string theories. String theorists also have a sort of self-regulating ratchet which excludes unphysical theories, most recently excluding swampland theories. Most money in particle physics is going towards nuclear power, colliders like LHC or Fermilab's loops, or specialized detectors like SK (a giant tank of water) or LIGO (artfully-arranged laser beams) which mostly have to sit still and not be disturbed; in all cases, that money is going towards verification and operationalization of the Standard Model, and any non-standard theories are only coincidentally funded.

So just by double-checking the history, we see that some string theories have been falsified and that the Standard Model, not any string theory, is where most funding goes. Hossenfelder and Woit both know better, but knowing better doesn't sell books. Gutmann doesn't realize, I think.

It's been frustrating to watch Gutmann slowly slide. He hasn't slid that far yet, I suppose. Don't discount his voice, but don't let him be the only resource for you to learn about quantum computing; fundamentally, post-quantum concerns are a sort of hard read in one direction, and Gutmann has decided to try a hard read in the opposite direction.

Page 19, complaining about lattice-based algorithms, is hypocritical; lattice-based approaches are roughly as well-studied as classical cryptography (Feistel networks, RSA) and elliptic curves. Yes, we haven't proven that lattice-based algorithms have the properties that we want, but we haven't proven them for classical circuits or over elliptic curves, either, and we nonetheless use those today for TLS and SSH.

Pages 28 and 29 are outright science denial and anti-intellectualism. By quoting Woit and Hossenfelder — who are sneerable in their own right for writing multiple anti-science books each — he is choosing anti-maths allies, which is not going to work for a subfield of maths like computer science or cryptography. In particular, p28 lies to the reader with a doubly-bogus analogy, claiming that both string theory and quantum computing are non-falsifiable and draw money away from other research. This sort of closing argument makes me doubt the entire premise.

Look, I get your perspective, but zooming out there is a context that nobody's mentioning, and the thread deteriorated into name-calling instead of looking for insight.

In theory, a training pass needs one readthrough of the input data, and we know of existing systems that achieve that, from well-trodden n-gram models to the wholly-hypothetical large Lempel-Ziv models. Viewed that way, most modern training methods are extremely wasteful: Transformers, Mamba, RWKV, etc. are trading time for space to try to make relatively small models, and it's an expensive tradeoff.

From that perspective, we should expect somebody to eventually demonstrate that the Transformers paradigm sucks. Mamba and RWKV are good examples of modifying old ideas about RNNs to take advantage of GPUs, but are still stuck in the idea that having a GPU perform lots of gradient descent is good. If you want to critique something, critique the gradient worship!

I swear, it's like whenever Chinese folks do anything the rest of the blogosphere goes into panic. I'm not going to insult anybody directly but I'm so fucking tired of mathlessness.

Also, point of order: Meta open-sourced Llama so that their employees would stop using Bittorrent to leak it! Not to "keep the rabble quiet" but to appease their own developers.

West Coast of USA, late 2000s to early 2010s, yes, the thick squared dark eyeglass frames were popular. Every time I see photos of these folks, I'm reminded of a couple people I know IRL as well as folks I know professionally who still prefer the thicker frames. Personally, I've always needed a very heavy prescription, and so I've always looked for the thinnest frames, but it really was a trend a decade ago.

Somebody pointed out that HN's management is partially to blame for the situation in general, on HN. Copying their comment here because it's the sort of thing Dan might blank:

but I don't want to get hellbanned by dang.

Who gives a fuck about HN. Consider the notion that dang is, in fact, partially to blame for this entire fiasco. He runs an easy-to-propagandize platform due how much control of information is exerted by upvotes/downvotes and unchecked flagging. It's caused a very noticeable shift over the past decade among tech/SV/hacker voices -- the dogmatic following of anything that Musk or Thiel shit out or say, this community laps it up without hesitation. Users on HN learn what sentiment on a given topic is rewarded and repeat it in exchange for upvotes.

I look forward to all of it burning down so we can, collectively, learn our lessons and realize that building platforms where discourse itself is gamified (hn, twitter, facebook, and reddit) is exactly what led us down this path today.

Elon is an Expert Beginner: he has become proficient in executing the basics of the craft by sheer repetition, but failed to develop meaningful generalizations.

The original Expert Beginner concept was defined here in terms of the Dreyfus model, but I think it's compatible with Lee's model as well. In your wording of Lee's model, one becomes an Expert Beginner when their intuition is specialized for seeing the thing; they have seen so many punches that now everything looks like a punch and must be treated like a punch, but don't worry, I'm a punch expert, I've seen so many punches, I definitely know what to do when punches are involved.

There's a good insight from this armchair psychoanalysis. The typical narcissist is technically capable of performing the whole pretend-to-care-for-game-theoretic-reasons behavior, provided that there is an incentive for them. However, if Elon genuinely believes himself to be Christ or Buddha or Roy, then his abilities don't matter, because he will never have the incentive to deflate his beliefs and face his own limitations and mortality. In short, Elon's attitude can't be adjusted and his mental health will never improve.

You may have heard that Catturd doesn't have any fiber in his diet and was hospitalized for bowel blockage. (Best sneer I've seen so far: "can't turd.") Along similar lines, Srid isn't taking his statins for high cholesterol caused by a carnivore diet.

Meta: I'm kind of pissed that Catturd is WP notable but laughing my ass off at the page for carnivore diets. Life takes and gives.