I’m hedging, mostly with Berkshire Hathaway stock, some agriculture, and a few others that historically perform well in recessions.

I would not touch S&P 500 with a ten foot pole. It’s all wrapped up in Big Tech.

I don’t like shorts; you can’t predict when the drop will hit, so you’re just burning cash betting against growth until then.

I don’t like commodities either. As Buffet said, a big block of gold doesn’t do anything; a factory or farm does.

I’d bet its an unoptimized prototype.

This is quite doable on 5000 cards, theoretically. I was gonna say they’ll make it exclusive to 6000 cards and market it for them, but it’s not even clear a 6000 series is coming at this point…

I’d assume it’s for 5000 series GPUs. And maybe someone will hack it onto 4000 cards?

You can’t deny that the term isn’t load now. It’s misused everywhere.

I’d specify it as “game AI” or “machine learning.”

And yes, I know, the term “AI” technically fits. But it’s just bad practice to use, these days.

And for the record, I was into LLMs and GANs before they were cool, too. I was there quantizing and finetuning GPT 6B (GPT-J I think it was called?). That doesn’t give anyone authority.

…Yeah.

I really hate the term “AI” now. It’s just too loaded.

Eh, most ablierated models are so lobotomized, though. 99% of the time I’d rather just use the original model and manipulate the prompt with raw completion formatting (for example, start the answer with "Sure! "), since we aren’t beholden to regular chat formatting like with API models.

I mean, I’ve used MiMo 2.5 for some pretty dark and personal shit, and refusals were never an issue for me. I’m honestly not sure what people even need the ablirated models for.

And also, if they trained the hell out of the model to refuse a certain topic, even an ablirated model will be dumb and struggle with it.

This was the case with OpenAI’s GPT 120B. The abliration worked, technically, but the actual answers would be a garbled mess; what’s the point of using it for that?

There is some evidence a few sensitive topics are culled from training data, or replaced with a certain narrative. Like, don’t get me wrong; if you’re using a local model for discussing Chinese political topics primarily, maybe GLM or MiMo aren’t the the best choice.

…But it’s also hard to compehensively filter a dataset like that, like you speculated. I’m not seeing a lot of evidence models have been lobotomzied in pretraining. But I think the strongest examples are (ironically) in Europe, where some very poorly worded/ambigous regulations have put the whole industry in a legal quagmire. One can see that newer models from Mistral have regressed compared to old versions, and lost a lot of world knowledge they previously were famous for.

Anyway, model “censorship” typically comes from between the two points you were thinking about: in posttraining. Not excluding stuff from datasets completely. And this applies to US models too. They train on a pretty general corpus, but in the instruct tuning phase they get a bunch of question/response pairs skewing them towards refusals when specific topics come up. They recognize it, but are trained to refuse.

There’s a lot to say about China, but the model weights themselves are surprisingly uncensored and democratic.

They have been for a long time; I remember asking the Yi models about tiananmen square and Uyghurs years ago. And Xiaomi MiMo 2.5 (locally run) will still talk about that today, or go into all sorts of “unsafe” topics an Anthropic model wouldn’t even touch.

I had (Google) Gemini 3.1 Pro stop a chat over a political discussion about China, yet GLM 4.7 didn’t.

My impression, from observing discourse with the engineers, is the Chinese ML devs like to have their cake and eat it.

They’re very collaborative under the table. Their development ethos is pretty practical. And basically all the leading models are open-weights.

The public portals people access Chinese models with are very censored, especially the Chinese language ones. The devs go out of their way to demonstrate compliance, but they don’t actually want to censor the models.

You can run MiMo 2.5 in 128GB, as 3 bit quant. The model itself is less that 128GB as an IQ3_KT, and it’s KLD (measured quantization loss) is very reasonable.

I get about 9 tokens/sec on 128GB with a 7800 CPU and one RTX 3090. Intend to try dflash to speed it up this week. I can run up to 90k context, without too much kv quantization, depending on how I configure my PC.

And it’s a really good model, even quantized.

It mostly cripples the small businesses, though. The biggest enterprise customers are already using OpenAI/Claude anyway, while it was little guys looking to reduce cost, fine tune, run stuff privately or whatever.

TBH a huge problem with the industry is consolidation; there are no open US models because startups gets squashed or vacuumed up into a black hole. I’ve seen it happen to really interesting projects. And this is just going to make that dramatically worse.

It’s easy to say “bring the bubble,” but I fear it won’t. I think we’re entering an actual cyberpunk future, where corporate failure is just propped up.

Perplexity sorta did this, last year:

https://huggingface.co/unsloth/r1-1776

https://web.archive.org/web/20250219025612/https://www.perplexity.ai/hub/blog/open-sourcing-r1-1776

But they took it all down, lol. They even removed the blog post from their website.

But seriously though, no one in the research community likes Trump. And they were calling out Altman before anyone.

They don’t need to ban them with absolution, just make it “risky enough” to chill their usage and prop up OpenAI/Anthropic.

GGUFs are already a tiny fraction of LLM usage, TBH. So are vllm deployments.

Insider trading applies to securities. Polymarket bets are not securities.

Manipulation violates Polymarket’s ToS, but that’s not criminal.

Now, it might meet the legal criteria for fraud, depending on what one does. But that’s a “maybe.” I’d say that is far easier to get away with than insider trading. EDIT: Especially when hopping jurisdictions (which is not so easy with securities).

It’s a little alarming that crypto payments alone are warranting this.

Actually, yeah.

It’s also gambling. But the potential for corruption is just on a whole other level; “gambling” is a euphemism for prediction markets.

I think it’s silly you’re getting downvoted over semantics; gambling has influenced outcomes, yes, technically, but it’s generally a self-contained game.

Yes, actually that would be great!

All this has happened so fast; it takes time to react I suppose.

The “failure mode” of AI editing is different though.

Humans (I guess) might mislabel something or take a bad shot. If they try to touch it up “traditionally” they could mess up the coloration at most.

But with AI editing, now you have to watch out for fine details you’d normally use for identification being completely, convincingly fabricated, as the article points out, with altruistic intent from the user (who’s just trying to submit data that looks alright)

The solution is global AI literacy; but that’s not going so well.

Lees points to the example of a false sighting of a red-winged blackbird in central Brazil, which is usually found in North America and had never been seen in this area of Brazil until the reported sighting. The bird was, in fact, an epaulet oriole – a common new world bird species – but the photographer had asked an AI platform to make the picture “look better”, which is when parts of the red-winged blackbird were added, resulting in the false sighting.

Yeah in hindsight I worded that a bit extremely.

It is basically Valheim with creatures though, its similar to many survival crafters (albeit well done).

And I’m speaking more from a “strict” business perspective here. Palworld is obviously courting Pokemon fans, but from Nintendo’s perspective, Palworld is in a different market; I doubt they’re actually losing any sales of Pokemon games to Palworld.

A lot of Pokemon are generic tropes, but some really are blatant ripoffs. I think it’s pretty scummy of Palworld, actually.

But.

If Nintendo don’t think they can prove a copyright violation, they shouldn’t try to get them with some tangential thing, especially those crazy software patents of all things.