Since the beginning, I’ve been arguing that freezing AI progress would be the worst thing we could do. That safety is an engineering problem with engineering solutions, not a risk knob we dial up and down. This paper an extension of that argument.
If we’re going to accelerate, we should be deliberate about where compute capacity actually goes. Justin Milligan (@Justin_m34) and I landed on three uses that make sense today: making intelligence cheaper, making lives measurably better for the average person, and ensuring AI reliably does what we intend it to. Efficiency, flourishing, and alignment. Everything else is a waste, until we resolve our compute shortage.
First of many from @lightwave_ai.
https://t.co/hn2YcojIXK
At Lightwave, we’ve been working for months on the future of inference. We’re not yet ready to unveil what we’ve done, but today we’re sharing some of the thinking behind what we’re working on. The thesis is simple: for the next several years, the world will be compute constrained. Chips, power, and grid infrastructure can’t be built as fast as demand for AI is growing, and everybody, including us, are feeling it firsthand. That makes every hour of compute a meaningful tradeoff.
Two members of our founding team, Dave Blundin and Justin Milligan, set out to answer a question at the center of this issue: what should that compute be used for? Their answer is that nearly all of it should go to three uses: making intelligence cheaper, putting it to work for measurable human benefit, and making it trustworthy enough to rely on. The paper explains the rationale behind each one, why they strengthen one another, and what we think the people controlling compute should do about it.
This is the first in a series where we’ll share what we believe and how we think about the technical problems in front of us.
Read the paper: https://t.co/OgRu26V2OT
@DaveBlundin@Justin_m34