Trump will cure cancer with AI

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

I disagree with this being a snake oil sale, maybe there is deep medical potential with AI?

1) You assume this will actually get built.

2) You assume there is any connection between LLM AIs and scientific discovery.

3) You overlook that this whole scheme will be used to siphon public money for private gain to enrich oligarchs, not ordinary people, only making oligarchy stronger. Oligarchs can use this AI to enslave you. And they will build it using your tax dollars.

Do you think these people really care about curing cancer for free, or enslaving you for profit?

This is like if Emperor Palpatine said, We are investing in a supercomputer to cure cancer, but really he is building the Death Star. And dumb people cheer him on.

Edited Wednesday at 09:48 PM by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

Why cure cancer when their goal is to get everyone into a simulation? These are counter intuitive.

Im gunna say lie about curing cancer to work on the simulation. Then say the end of the world is coming get into the simulation and then murder them.

Edited Wednesday at 09:46 PM by Hojo

[Shane Hanlon]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

This is hilariously terrifyingly accurate lol 

[LambdaDelta]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But can it actually run on a home machine? Don't you need a datacenter to run it?

14 or 32 billion parameter versions should be runnable on a home computer with great specs, 7-8b for lower end. 70b and the full 671 billion will require enterprise level hardware. 

[LambdaDelta]

Nothing is ever so simple with China. Nice of them to release it open source, but the majority of people won't be using it that way, they'll go through their app/webui, which allows for data collection at large scales, thus justifying the low prices they charge. A closer look at the TOS is needed, though nothing says it will be respected anyway. Still going to use it though.

[zazen]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But can it actually run on a home machine? Don't you need a datacenter to run it?

I'm not too sure actually, but according to this guy they can. He gives great commentary on China and geopolitics in general and provides interesting points on DeepSeek here: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1882260058660393385

Arnaud:

''The right question to ask after what happened these past few days isn't how Deepseek is going to make money. It's how OpenAI will. Deepseek isn't the one that needs to make a ROI on half a trillion dollars worth of data centers (or whatever fraction of that amount actually materializes) with a product that's now offered free by the competition.

And that's probably exactly the point of Deepseek's strategy: to fundamentally change the economics of the market so as to make OpenAI's model obsolete. Let's play this out and assume that Deepseek's strategy works out, and from where I stand it's looking like it's starting to. What "working out" means is scores of AI projects now starting to use Deepseek's model (in Open-Source or via their API) to power their AI endeavors, resulting in an ecosystem effect and them becoming a standards setter. It's also them proving that many AI applications don't require massive data centers.

While the most powerful models still need significant infrastructure, Deepseek's smaller versions can run locally on personal computers and gaming PCs, making OpenAI's $500B investment look highly questionable for many use cases. And there's a brilliant strategic angle here: while OpenAI pours billions into centralized infrastructure, Deepseek is democratizing AI by enabling local deployment. This allows them to expand their reach without massive infrastructure investments: their users make it for them.

If you're OpenAI, this all ought to make you sweat. You're basically IBM in the late 1970s watching personal computers starting to democratize computing. Your $500B bet on centralized computing power might be happening just as the market shifts toward distributed, commodity AI. And you're stuck: you can either dramatically cut your prices to compete (as a reminder, Deepseek charges just 3% of OpenAI's prices for their API calls, good luck making ROI on $500B of infrastructure if you match them), or try to differentiate by coming up with better models - bearing in mind that Deepseek has a track record of catching up to your models in a matter of days or weeks.

All in all it looks like OpenAI's expensive infrastructure might end up being the ultimate liability rather than the moat they hoped for. To come back to the original question of monetization, what this all means is that Deepseek's approach is almost like that of guerrilla forces choosing terrain that turns an enemy's superior firepower into a liability. They're changing the game to impose their vision of AI as an open commodity that runs everywhere versus OpenAI's vision of a closed service controlled centrally. While OpenAI builds massive, expensive bases, Deepseek is empowering local resistance through distributed, efficient deployment. History shows how that usually ends.''

 

Interesting to see a Tech bro from the MAGA circle giving some recognition.

Edited Thursday at 12:44 PM by zazen

[cistanche_enjoyer]

Guys you have no idea how close we are to building AGI.

The next step is ASI, but once we reach ASI, supposedly it’s gonna be pretty quick.

This video explains it well:

 

[Leo Gura]

Keep hyping up that monorail till the market implodes and crypto bros are drowning in their own blood.

Edited Friday at 12:01 AM by Leo Gura

[mmKay]

Why do I get the the feeling that the 500B project will end like this?

 

[The Crocodile]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Keep hyping up that monorail till the market implodes and crypto bros are drowning in their own blood.

"My red flag is your white one soaked in blood."

[Whitney Edwards]

@zazen hope it's not China's strategy to get information. 

[diegogomez42]

These companies dont need an investment such as this, as it stands its well known that the limit for llm size coherency has already been met with current technological development, they dont need such money until they figure out llm coherency at larger scales. Right now Xai seems to be leading the race with the largest achieved llm supercomputer with full coherency, yet Xai arent in the proposed contract by trump.

 

 

[Joshe]

41 minutes ago, diegogomez42 said:

These companies dont need an investment such as this, as it stands its well known that the limit for llm size coherency has already been met with current technological development, they dont need such money until they figure out llm coherency at larger scales. Right now Xai seems to be leading the race with the largest achieved llm supercomputer with full coherency, yet Xai arent in the proposed contract by trump.

I shared a video from a world-class SWE called The Primeagen. He says they ain’t going for AGI, but rather, they’re going to invest in fabricating their own chips and warehousing all their own hardware so things will be more affordable for them. He says it’s basically just to scale the existing tech and to cut their reliance on Microsoft, Nvidia, etc. Seems to make sense. 

 

Edited Friday at 05:32 AM by Joshe

[Emerald]

Trump's public announcement of anything that seems too good to be true... 

 

[cistanche_enjoyer]

On 23/01/2025 at 4:39 AM, Leo Gura said:

Oligarchs can use this AI to enslave you.

You assume oligarchs would want to enslave us.

Why? Don’t they have better things to do with all their money?

[zazen]

Why this Stargate project may not pan out as expected:

Edited Saturday at 09:06 AM by zazen