Fact: 100% of all people who consume the chemical compound Dihydrogen Monoxide eventually die. #HydrationHalt #DitchTheDrink #StayDryDontDie #MADH2O

So… I guess she is a smart woman after all?

OTOH I hope OP is at least pretty.

And who was paying her 24 hr / day before Richard Gere’s character came along?

I do think it’s a useful distinction considering open models can be more than 100B+ nowdays and GPT4 is rumored to be 1.7T params. Plus this class of models are far more likely to be on-device.

No phones can run “LLMs” currently because by definition, large.

Some Android phones however can and does run smaller models locally. Gemini Nano runs on Pixel 8 and can run on Samsung phones.

https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/nano/

It’s not a LLM, it’s a much smaller model (~3B) which is closer to what Microsoft labels as a SLM (Small Language Models, e.g. MS Phi-3 Mini).

https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/introducing-apple-foundation-models

I was there and going again tomorrow and not to worry, you will be there.

But don’t drink from the water fountain

Flight mode has been enabled.

YHOJ…

What I want to understand is whether or not that technology is creating more value.

I think the question to ask is value created for whom. Based on my personal and probably biased opinion, value is not created for the greater good but for the capital owners and shareholders.

And if so than more technology means more value which means we can eventually get to a place of so much societal surplus that we can reorchestrate soceity to enjoy the benefits of it.

Again, my opinion, but it’s not in the DNA of a capitalistic society to have surpluses so someone will capture it and try to squeeze out more. So in the event of a seismic technology advancement, my dystopian view is that the poor will not reap much benefits, and instead of billionaires, we will have trillionaires.

So that’s where my question is. If a company experiences a +30% efficiency boost due to technology, does soceity benefit from it?

I think if there is a counterbalance to capitalism and corporate greed then yes, some of that value will come back to society. Perhaps an improved medication at cost, better transit, emergency response technology… But if we leave it in the hands of capitalists they will enrich themselves very quickly.

There is a lot to unpack from your post. First of all, there is no doubt that technology in general adds value for the human race - like the another commenter said, foundational things like fire, tools all the way to the zipper and buttons you have on clothings, umbrellas you bring into the rain, the video chats you have with loved ones during COVID - those are all the fruits of technology.

But if you get down to the particulars, value can be very subjective. Some people value fancy new tech sneakers, primate NFTs whereas others value new computer vision technology or a new programming language. So are certain technologies adding value? Depends on who you ask.

As for who is capturing value in a capitalistic society, I think you already have the answer. Simply put, if your company operates at a 50% efficiency and you bump it up to 70% with tech and automation, rest assured that you are going to see job cuts to “become lean” and to “do less with more”, followed by increased targets to produce more. You are not going to get more leisure time but instead be asked to push ahead until you hit the physical limit and break.

Do you have a problem?

Yes

Can you do something about it?

I DONT KNOW

P A N I K

Ryan Gosling the Sigma Male poster boy of the decade.

OR this is a Lemmyshitpost moment because we are all taking part in making this guy and his well-timed tweet go viral.

In both cases I think they would deny it.

I don’t have a solution for the 2nd situation (and I don’t think anyone really does), this is more of a social problem. The point I’m making is that in the first scenario there is a clear pattern of denial for those who need help.

In terms of how you differeniate it, my understanding is if the behavior is impacting your life negatively then you would seek help. But I’m not an expert and that’s not a problem we are solving here.

Up next after Elongate

You can freely think that I am one, and I genuinely think I’m not. If you think that I am one, that’s your problem, not mine.

I mean that’s exactly the issue lol. You might not be an alcoholic, but if you were there’s a solid chance you’d deny that fact.There is a good reason why parts of the 12 step program involve admitting and recognizing that there is a problem, and it’s not limited to alcoholism but substance abuse in general.

A lot of people who genuinely need help refuses to see or admit that they do.

It’s because denial is part of being an alcoholic. The same goes with being called a liar.

What’s your point? If a game came out on console, it doesn’t matter that it was ever an arcade game?

Dude I literally told you my point in the next paragraph lol.

Whoops! My bad. Millennials started in 1981 and I was born in 1980. Guess I was never a millennial after all except the years keep changing and I’ve seen start dates of 1980, 1979, and 1978 as well. It’s hard to keep track when the date keeps changing.

Yeah let’s make it all about you! So offended, so sad. Look, I’m not really interested in indulging you because this debate is a big nothingburger. I’ve made my case and other people can weight in. But feel free to continue blowing all the hot air you like.

Have you ever heard of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Turtles in Time? The Simpsons? X-Men? All those Neo Geo games? There was also this game called…um, street something…streets of fighting? Street Kombat? Mortal Fighter? Street Fighter?

Yes and most if not all of those landed on console too. Your point?

I’m not saying that arcades are unsuccessful in the 90s. I’m saying for millennials, the notion of video games had shifted from primarily arcade to primarily console due to the console boom in the 90s, thus supporting OP’s point that Millenials should remember a time when games are not pay-to-win.

You say people born in the early 80’s are millennials, but if you were a kid in the 80’s that makes you gen x? Do you not know how math works? Someone born in the early 80’s would be a kid during the 80’s.

What are you on about? These generations are defined by date ranges and not something I made up. So yes, it is entirely possible that the oldest of the old Millennials might be arcade crawling at age 8 or 9 in the 80s, but a whole bunch more of them are still in diapers or not even born yet. Make sense?

Oldest millennials were born in early 80s? So when they were at the gaming age it would be in the 90s, during the era of the console boom.

If you were primarily the arcade-trotting group you’d have to be a kid or teen in the 80s which puts you in Gen X.