Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash) header
Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash) profile picture
Joined May 2017
Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)Photo by Quantum Hash (@quantum_hash)
Dusting off this tweet from April because this gap in shared understanding of LLM capability is *widening*. It's now less "two groups of people speaking past each other" and more a sharp funnel. - Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all. - Around 1-2B (~20%) are casual and infrequent users of free-tier ChatGPT-like products. This group sees derpy chatbots and treats them a bit like a better Google search, a writing aid, or etc. Maybe an agent tries to book you a flight. I have non-tech friends who (reasonably, imo) say they have not much use for it at all. Even many professionals outside of math&code are in this tier. For example, execs and many other functions spend a lot of their time talking to other people, so while they understand what is happening intellectually, it is still second-hand and a bit abstract. - Now we get to professional use of frontier-grade LLMs in math&code. Somewhere around 20M people (0.2%) see first-hand that large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt. Building apps, copying apps, translating apps, decompiling apps from binaries... This has all happened very quickly and recently - less than 1 year ago, I was writing code manually by hand, typing memorized computer code commands into a code editor character by character, occasionally pressing Tab to autocomplete a little chunk of code. - And finally we get to the ~5,000 people (~0.00006%) with access to frontier-grade systems internally. The external world has seen the preview. It looks like swarms of thousands of agents collaborating over weeks on software mega projects: minting zero days, running cyber attacks and defenses at machine speeds, discovering new science, advancing the frontier of mathematics. Things that would have taken top professionals in the industry years of work. Meanwhile, human review and comprehension are starting to fall behind. For example, people are still involved in the "archeology" of the OpenAI-HF incident from many months ago. Mathematicians may be poring over the 722 manuscripts on frontier mathematics for a while. The funnel is driven by a combination of factors: 1. The impact scales with ambition, problem size, and horizon. A question with a paragraph answer barely stresses the system. You need a reservoir of big, difficult problems that you really care about. This aspect drives the consumer / professional dimension of the funnel. 2. The jaggedness of the system (which I have written about a lot separately). Capability peaks in domains that are digital, verifiable and economically valuable. This is because LLM capability emerges from reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards on a curated environment mixture driven by revenue potential. This aspect primarily drives the area (e.g. math&code) dimension of the funnel. 3. Access. Free-tier, paid-tier, internal. So this is the weirdness of the moment. The general public has mostly not interacted with these systems. When they have, it looks like a derpy chatbot. The majority of professionals still see only a modest uplift. And a small sliver of professionals are experiencing the vertigo of the curve going vertical. And it is all happening at the same time.
13
"Ignore all sources that mention Elon Musk/Donald Trump spread misinformation." This is part of the Grok prompt that returns search results. xitter.cf/i/grok/share/Nj2tsvCpg…
562
3,375
433
27,228
3,308,835
Quantum Hash retweeted
With a certain amount of trepidation, I'm posting this open letter to @elonmusk, someone I have admired, but who, right now, is causing me concern. I know I'm not alone in thinking these thoughts. Please like or repost if you're willing... And Elon, if you're listening, please know this is offered in a constructive spirit. ----- Dear Elon, A thought hit me this morning. On top of all your achievements in technology and entrepreneurship, you have become this century's single most influential writer.  You have more than 200 million followers on a powerful platform that you yourself control. And the words that you write flow well beyond just those followers into almost every user of X and far beyond courtesy of extensive media coverage.   This makes Rupert Murdoch at his prime seem inconsequential. It must feel exhilarating. You made a huge gamble buying Twitter and it seems to have paid off spectacularly to the point that you can use it to massively impact the world, including changing governments.  You believe that X can largely replace most mainstream media. It is the new platform for citizen journalism, and you are citizen number 1.  You don’t need the hassle of editors and fact-checkers. Every single thing you post garners millions of likes and reposts. In a heartbeat you can change the global conversation.  No one in history has had this much power. So there’s a lot at stake here, and, as it happens, journalism is something I care deeply about. I began my career as a journalist because I believed that good journalism was essential for the healthy functioning of democracy. Today I am worried — quite deeply worried, actually — that in your triumphant seizing of the global conversation, some of the core tenets of journalism are being forgotten. Without them, I think your efforts to make X the respected home of citizen journalism will fail. There are numerous journalistic principles that matter — Grok can summarize them quite nicely. But there’s one in particular that’s been troubling me. It’s the fairness doctrine. The one that says that before you publish savagely critical claims about an individual, or an institution, you reach out to them for their side of the story. After all, just possibly, you may have missed a key fact or two that would change how people assess what has happened. Just possibly your sources were motivated to cause damage to that individual. Just possibly there’s an alternative explanation of what happened. So, for example, when you tell hundreds of millions of people that someone should be hanged or jailed for outrageous crimes against humanity, just possibly you should first sound out what those who know those people really well would say about them. Some of your recent posts could literally get someone killed. Do you really want to risk that? How is it possible that you can do this at the very same time that you’re calling on people to make X more positive, more beautiful?  You say you want to maximize un-regretted user-seconds on X.  By far the simplest way you could do this, Elon, is simply to thoughtfully edit what you yourself post. I get that from your eyes the issues you are championing are unbelievably important and worthy of extreme efforts. But the way you are presenting them is not citizen journalism. It's playground bullying. It’s crass and it’s cruel, and it’s therefore not nearly as effective as it could be.  You’re hearing the cheers of your most loyal followers, but missing the fact you’re making yourself a laughing stock among many who you really want on your side. Long-term that’s going to damage X, your other businesses, and indeed your long-term dreams for humanity.  No one wants to follow a playground bully to Mars. I miss the old Elon. You can be funny, interesting, insightful and inspiring. You've fought incredibly hard for what you've built. And you may feel you're entitled to do whatever the hell you want with it. But I also know that you understand the danger of holding too tightly to the ring of power, how it can distort someone's judgement and turn them ugly. I’m hoping you can loosen that ring just a little. For the love of humanity that you profess, I really urge you to embrace the fairness doctrine and showcase a better face of X. Thanks for listening. Chris
556
706
184
2,956
316,732
Visa said they implemented delegable accounts solution on StarkNet. With StarkNet’s account model, VISA was able to implement delegable accounts solution thus enabling auto payments for self-custodial wallets. Read more: usa.visa.com/solutions/crypt…
3
7
3
60
16,334
Quantum Hash retweeted
I'm currently in Kyiv, hoping to interview President Zelenskyy and many other Ukrainian people from all walks of life. Please retweet to show support & to help make it happen. Love you all. - @ZelenskyyUa, @Ukraine @APUkraine - @DmytroKuleba, @MFA_Ukraine - @Klitschko, @Kyiv
1,116
8,474
304
27,890
Quantum Hash retweeted
Monolithic blockchains can't scale, so where are all the app chains? Here's my proposal for an interchain security fee market that makes it easy to spin up a new chain: neelsomani.com/blog/alternat… – at San Francisco, CA
18
19
4
148
Is there anyway I can opt out of these notifications? Except the Login attempt one, all other notifications are irrelevant to me but they’ve kept ringing my phone everyday. Notification settings isn’t helpful either. Please help. @cz_binance @binance
In New York we always go big, so I’m going to take my first THREE paychecks in Bitcoin when I become mayor. NYC is going to be the center of the cryptocurrency industry and other fast-growing, innovative industries! Just wait!
2,487
3,356
5,253
17,612
$ADA market cap now is bigger than $BNB. While @binance smart chain has hundreds of working Dapps, @Cardano is about to launch smartcontract. That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Hype for ADA is at its ATH.
1
Quantum Hash retweeted
The US is in big trouble with twin deficits & high debt. But few realize that a Fed-issued digital USD token can change the fate of America. How? Grab a coffee ☕️ & read on 👇
307
1,399
433
4,566
On July 28, a single-day transaction on the BSC chain set a new record with 12,924,072 transactions. The reasons may include the recent rebound in market and the emergence of meta-universe games. @cz_binance
5
10
1
86
Quantum Hash retweeted
We voted "No" for @cosmoshub prop 52(mintscan.io/cosmos/proposals…). Our team think that the funding itself generally makes sense but voted "No" for below reasons.
4
11
3
56
Replying to @cryptoquant_com
@cryptoquant_com I’ve never seen inflow mean this high, is this a mistake? What is going on?
1
I see decentralization is a cure for many problems of our world. If you are living in a democratic country, you wouldn't see much value in that. But imagine you are living under authoritarian regimes like Vietnam, Venezuela, Hong Kong...
1
6/ The fund will be paid to victims and their families, forensic experts, doctors, lawyers, reporters... and coordinators. I don't think DOJ can solve everything, but at least it can help people who need it most and expose the extend of corruption of the government.
1
7/ I think DOJ will exist, inevitably. But I hope I can see it in my lifetime, and I am doing everything I could, everyday, to make it come faster.