It’s an indictment of openAI. They’re a fossil at this point, they need to monetize but their bubble is so big they can barely put a dent in it. How are you going to raise literally the 1 billion dollar a month they spend? China is rolling out models at a fraction of the cost that reach the same level, and notably their companies survive on things other than their LLMs - and they make their models open source too. Like they’re really not concerned about any of these questions over there, they’re just making their models.

The problem is if openAI lets go, their bubble will fly away without them. It’s very cutthroat right now in western tech, with the big 3 companies all trying to outcompete each other but failing to find ways to. And openAI doesn’t do anything but AI, they’re using the startup philosophy (just build product with investment money and we’ll eventually figure out a way to monetize that sticks) but at their size it just doesn’t work anymore. Remember when they rolled out miniGPTs that you were supposed to be able to monetize?

So any little advantage they can cling onto they will push, and this is how openAI has become a joke. I can’t remember the last time I used chatGPT, maybe once or twice a year if I want it to run python code directly but that’s about it.

Oh yeah and z.ai came out of nowhere too last year and can build full stack apps for you. Well, they’re very buggy lol. But it gets a LOT of the job done and I can only expect it will become better down the line. Oh yeah and Chinese models are all free, even in the cloud version.

A lot of this tech also relies on open-source contributions. For example the ubiquitous chatgpt UI style (message panel in the middle of the screen, chat history on the left) has been made into OpenWebUI and this is what most other providers use, possibly with their own tweaks to it but they start from that github repo.

Thanks I love Juche can’t wait

Generally speaking when it comes to any supplement (drinks included) you can look at two things:

1. The concentration of the ingredient
2. Which way they get the ingredient in

The first one is easier if you’re anywhere that’s not the US, since brands need to detail the ingredients list. Basically there’s doses wehre these ingredients start to work. You can look them up online generally. Many of these brands, especially in the energy drinks boom, underdose the active ingredients just so they can put the name front and center.

The second thing can be trickier but you can also generally look it up. Notice it says lion’s mane extract for the Trip can, but only Ashwagandha. This is a particularly easy example to look at. The extract is good, it’s what you want. It’s essentially the concentrated active component without the not-interesting bulk - that is, every other molecule that forms fungi, such as the cells.

But they don’t say that for the Ashwagandha, which implies they use the whole root, including the cellulose or whatever

This logically lowers the concentration of the chemical that you want from Ashwagandha for this purpose. Whether the chemical actually works is another question, but this should be sufficient to say that it’s not going to be present in high enough concentrations if they don’t specify extract or the particular molecule.

On the flip side you also have different binding agents. Magnesium is a big one. you can get magnesium oxide which is the cheapest form, but is also almost entirely rejected by the body. This means out of say 100mg of magnesium oxide, you will only process and absorb 10mg. Magnesium glycinate, bound to the glycine amino acid, is much more readily bioavailable to our body and the one you should take as a supplement because we digest glycine, but not oxide.

Energy drink companies love the oxide form though because it’s cheap af since you can barely do anything with it, but they can still say there’s magnesium in their formulation, and sell you that can at a premium. They make huge margins on sales that’s why there’s an energy drink boom right now.

I don’t know if there’s anybody who hasn’t come to the same conclusion lol but ultimately, after (re-)reading and retyping my thoughts over and over, I come to two conclusions:

This is a problem of capitalism but it’s also not saying much. The crux of the matter is copyright law and competition.

On the one hand copyright law is so backwards and outdated (thank Disney) that the only way they could do this was to discard the books after scanning them. Cutting books, known as destructive scanning, used to be for a long time the only viable way to digitized books. With new methods however you can certainly do it without destroying the book, but many of these methods are patented.

The other side of the coin is that these AI companies “need” to put out better, faster models all the time to stay in competition. It’s a fast-evolving industry with similarly cut-throat competition. If you fall behind, people stop using you and you don’t find funding.

In higher-stage socialism, all of this would have basically been prevented. The SOE(s) responsible for AI research would have been told to preserve books even if it takes longer, or even find more efficient ways to train their models. There also wouldn’t be such a rush to put out marginally better models just to stay at the cutting edge. deepseek showed it’s possible to get a good model based on an original “cutting edge” model. Which means you only need the cutting edge model once, then you can decline it differently.

15 hours old account made expressly to respond to this topic that was once deleted and has been undeleted by the author

hmm

That’s great. Can you explain why you - sorry, I meant Wisconcom, who is obviously not you - have been a self-proclaimed hoxhaist for years, then when your defunct red spectre thing said that hoxha was actually a revisionist you followed along and edited his page to reflect that, but as soon as red spectre went defunct you undid Philip’s whatever-his-fake-name-is edit?

User and perhaps known content creator The Statesian Bolshevik was banned from revolupedia for, as per his own claim, not following along with repudiating hoxha - perhaps that is why you obeyed the order, so that you wouldn’t get banned from the red spectre? Only rehabilitating hoxha when it became safe to do so, after the red spectre had disbanded and you gained complete control over revolupedia, not tied to any organization anymore.

Following the dissolution of red spectre you also banned all of its membersfrom revolupedia with no reason attached in the log. Can people expect this kind of treatment if they join revolupedia too? The block list names can be compared to the red spectre constitutional document for verification.

Now you call yourself a maoist, flip-flopping between positions never quite picking one to stand on as for years prior you called yourself a hoxhaist, until you decided some time ago that it wasn’t actually the right term (despite using it yourself, and insisting that you were always an anti-revisionist marxist-leninist instead).

Just wondering. since you say revolupedia has internal democracy and is grounded in marxist theory you probably won’t mind answering these questions. People deserve to know if they can expect this kind of opportunism and ideology shopping to be going on if they join, and what kind of ‘internal democracy’, as per your other comment, you managed to build on that shaky foundation, because you have not given any examples.

he locked up a lot of people during the cultural revolution sometimes for quite arbitrary reasons

He was not the one who signed arrest orders or ran trials though, a lot of different people were involved in that. You can’t blame Mao as an individual for stuff that other people did. You can’t run an entire state with just one person.

the backyard steel and culling of the sparrows

Nobody in the 60s knew about the importance of sparrows in agriculture. Not even in the West. I think it’s easy to say “oh well duh of course don’t kill the sparrows” but who here among us is an actual farmer? Who here knew that sparrows ate more bugs than grain before it was told to them? I can barely grow a plant, I have no room to judge others when it comes to growing food.

I just didn’t find it to be very relevant to me

I’m an adult in Europe and I find Mao’s writing to be both relevant and applicable. But there is Mao the general and Mao the chairman. By the end of his life he was definitely saying some stuff that I don’t think even he believed in. But theory is an all encompassing body, and that is true in all fields. One couldn’t read one physics paper about gravity and then say “now I know how to launch a rocket to the moon”. I opened up my copy of the red book randomly and here’s one:

“Take the ideas of the masses and concentrate them, then go to the masses, persevere in the ideas and carry them through, so as to form correct ideas and leadership – such is the basic method of leadership”

It makes perfect sense to me, but that’s also because I have the associated baggage to understand what he means there and how that fits in not only to more of Mao’s writings but also in regards to other figures, the ‘best practices’ if you will of organizing.

I also found it really interesting that deepseek would refuse to answer any questions on Mao

The deepseek devs want it to be mainly used for math, coding, and other STEM applications for lack of a better word. There’s nothing wrong with that, in fact personally I think people should stop using LLMs as oracles so much and focus them on tasks instead. Deepseek produces great results (and all for free with no rate limits) if you give it some code to start with, because it needs proper framing of the project to avoid trying to overdo it. I usually start with chatGPT, have it do the first working version of the code, and then switch it to deepseek to finish it, and it works almost perfect on the first try.