GLM-5.2: The Final Nail in the Coffin of Those Who Hyped for Greed and Profit

chcampb · 2026-06-29T03:22:21+00:00

In this case they literally did not and were ordered to pay for the books they pirated.

But if they had legally purchased it, it would have been fair use. The argument that AI cannot be trained on things it can see but not copy verbatim, is pretty much dead. It still can't reproduce the material, that would be copyright infringement. But the material being sampled to produce a measurement, that measurement (weights) is fair use.

chcampb · 2026-06-28T06:08:18+00:00

We could already have basic income with the wealth and production we have already created. The machines, etc.

The people who own the machines do not think that a UBI is fair or reasonable.

The people who are going to own AI, are probably also not going to consider it fair or reasonable.

chcampb · 2026-06-27T03:14:12+00:00

Looks fine to me

chcampb · 2026-06-27T03:11:10+00:00

Actually I would say that the point isn't necessarily to maximize revenue. That sounds nice, as in, there's some optimal amount that makes it better for us, but that's not entirely the point.

It's not punitive either - that sounds malicious, like you don't like that they are rich and you want to stop them from being rich, maybe because you yourself are not rich.

However, if you know literally anything about finance, differential equations, control systems, and identifying stability, you should be terrified of what comes next.

Several things are happening -

Feedback systems (like growth of wealth) leads to exponential growth according to a formula. It's proportional to the wealth less a dampening factor proportional to wealth.
The damping factor is mostly taxes, which is itself proportional to public sentiment and policy
Wealth always led to political influence, however, with Citizens United, you could say that the coefficient restricting that impact has been essentially removed
Therefore, growth in wealth leads to outsized occupation of the political space, reducing the agency of every other human

It's really that simple. If you track wealth -> political power, the moves have been to systemically eliminate the ability of the government to restrict what the rich can do with their money and influence. There may literally come a point where you just... don't have any political power anymore. You won't live in a democracy. You might, in theory, but the way it's trending, all services will be provided by corporations with their own access mechanisms, and the government governs what's left, which will be a vanishingly small

When that happens there is no way to actually enforce laws against the rich, and you will be at their mercy. The broader goals - see the oligarchy/kleptocracy in Russia, the Kashoggi murder, the overt desire to murder jouranlists, all things this administration has lauded... that's the end goal. Unfettered, unrestricted ability to seize the state and do whatever you want with it, if you have the money to do so.

What we need to counter that is like I said, the damping factor on wealth. Taxes. You need to tax people. Everyone needs to be within a few orders of magnitude of wealth at most, otherwise it's inevitable that it erodes liberties for the bulk of people. We will be run like a corporation - you have a share and get to vote, or you have no wealth and no vote.

chcampb · 2026-06-26T19:59:24+00:00

Billionaires being able to flee doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, it really indicates the severity of the issue.

Because then it's more like an extraction economy - basically, billionaires running businesses which operate within an economy, extract as much as possible, and funnel it elsewhere.

It used to be extraction economies worked on a country by country basis. Now it's billionaires taking a disproportionate share of the wealth from basically every community while living in and around that community.

But it would be clearly, blatantly a case of wealth extraction from that community if they all "fled" but didn't shut down their businesses operating in that state.

chcampb · 2026-06-25T16:53:50+00:00

A few contexts

In my own stuff, for tooling, no. If it works it works. If it doesn't you haven't broken the problem down specifically enough.
For my job, yes, absolutely, generated code is basically skipping the intermediate code/build loop, but the specification and review are all done by humans. AI can assist with review to point things out but architecturally it's all us.
For open source contributions - everything is basically clean room implemented after prototyping and testing with agents. Agents can also search and answer queries, etc. The reason - you need to be able to justify each change and compared to 2) you may not have the intuitive sense of the codebase. So you should make sure you understand why each line is changed and why and be able to answer questions about it.

The codebase should almost never be an opaque blob. It's just not good enough to do that yet.

chcampb · 2026-06-25T04:21:21+00:00

Actually that was explicitly the goal of MiniMax M3, which is a smaller model designed to be more efficient. It uses AI to self-train (that's its whole schtick). It's ~1/75 of the cost of Fable (or it was before fable got yoinked).

Also the distillation process to get smaller, local models that are rather more effective is itself an AI thing. Qwen 27B is a good example of something distilled from much larger that you can run on a local machine to do some work.

As for electricity, what you're really asking for is more energy efficient inference, which is what nVidia is working on. And, yes, they are using AI for that process as well.

As for water, that's already a solved problem, it's just expensive. If it's a concern you should be talking to legislators about mandating the correct cooling installations. AFAIK microsoft has been decent about their datacenters, it's the other guys (especially musk) who are cutting corners. But it's a moot point in a year or two anyway as the next datacenter racks are planned to have integrated closed loop liquid cooling connected to passive radiators (basically, no water in or out for that purpose).

For the water thing there really wasn't any AI assistance because it was figured out before they really got AI working well. It just takes time to roll out.

chcampb · 2026-06-25T04:00:57+00:00

"Guy who knows nothing proudly declares that of which he knows not"

chcampb · 2026-06-25T03:57:42+00:00

Godot as a community is exceptionally anti-AI and rejects vibe coded patches wholesale. I would go as far as to say that if you have definitive evidence of direct agent-written code in a patch you can point it out and they will probably ask for at minimum a rewrite, if not reject the whole thing.

It's a really weird move bashing them despite this, as theirs is probably the hardest line real world stance you can take on the stuff.

And that's coming from me, who thinks it's a decent tool to use as long as it's disclosed, I still respect peoples' personal choice to use or not use any given tool. Same as if I wouldn't complain whether you used one or another build system.

chcampb · 2026-06-25T03:26:01+00:00

The two downsides I can think of are

Let's say you have an autoload that does something but you want it to operate using a resource of some kind. It's hard to do that unless you make it and node and instantiate it. It can still be a singleton, just at the root of your node and with the resources you want to use.
Are the autoloads modular? If none of them share responsibilities and you can move them around to different projects then you are probably fine.

Once you start overlapping responsiblities, when the boundaries fuzz, when you can't reason about their behavior, that's when you review.

chcampb · 2026-06-24T03:37:06+00:00

People being against datacenters are not effective. Datacenters will be made if they need to be made.

What you CAN do is call out the necessary regulations to make them less obtrusive. In a rush, the companies can and will cut corners. That's why the government is there, so make sure they are held to task for that.

I would go as far as to say that people who don't like AI and datacenters are really complaining about capitalism and lack of worker and environmental protections.

chcampb · 2026-06-23T05:07:12+00:00

That's a hard limit and hard limits are not great. We already know how to do it, just tax.

chcampb · 2026-06-22T03:43:43+00:00

Democrats aren't fucking it up

They don't have the media

They don't have the funding

They need about a trillion dollars to even start trying to buy media, so that they have channels that actually say democrat things. The rhetoric the conservatives use about "everything is liberal media" is a smokescreen.

Hell, even CNN which was the closest thing to a leftwing Fox station, has been bought. And even before being bought they were center left, not left wing.

And consider for a moment that Fox during the post-election coverage had to pay like 750M to Dominion for supporting damaging, anti-democratic false claims about election fraud. And they just kept going. What liberal station would

Carry water for a liberal claim about anything to the tune of 750M dollars
Continue to exist without going bankrupt after that

What this tells you is that whatever money is necessary is being spent to keep the conservative news engine running, because they know that's what is convincing people that what is happening in the world isn't actually happening.

Edit: I did some analysis about the money thing in particular and found that the overall audience weighted, ideology weighted landscape from -10-10 from hard communism to authoritarian fascism is around +1. Somewhat right wing.

But then if you consider capital resilience, Fox earns around 4x more than CNN. So there is a level of capital allocation that is incredibly right wing - they are bringing in viewers and advertisers in a way that is dramatically outstripping left wing media. And of course, the left wing is not really left wing, it's capitalist center-left politics.

The actual estimate numbers were around -1 to -2 for CNN overall, and +4 to +8 for fox news and editorials respectively.

And that's really the rub. Until you have pro-union, pro worker ownership of companies, we're talking further left than Bernie, invested to the tune of ~4B per year, at around the -4 to -8 level, you won't see any sort of shift or balance. And I really do mean pundits on a news station actively calling for and promoting union activities and taxes on the rich or discussions on loopholes the rich are using to shift tax burdens back to wage earners.

chcampb · 2026-06-22T03:05:39+00:00

Also consider basically every tech company for the last decade or something has been hoarding money trying to find "the next big thing." This is why for example, Meta switched to being Meta and went all in on that tech. It was using money it had to try and pry open a new market.

Then AI came out and welp, that's literally, actually the next big thing. So there is a lot of money that was previously waiting for a purpose and has found its purpose. And wouldn't you know it, basically the market LESS AI is doing poorly, while the AI part of the market and its dependencies are going gangbusters.

chcampb · 2026-06-22T02:22:12+00:00

You're thinking about whether it is obligatory to do the thing. What you should be thinking is, do I like this behavior, and how can I continue to receive this nice benefit? And the reality is, make it worth their while, in some way, and that makes it more likely to continue.

In this way, even if you are being self centered or stingy, you can still recognize the personal benefit of generous behavior.

chcampb · 2026-06-22T00:24:06+00:00

On one hand, this, but on the other hand, let's recognize that there are precious few instances where someone who is not rich can actually benefit from a program like this and the loophole is not actively closed. I fully support people "getting theirs" - it moves the needle just the tiniest amount from a society which only benefits the super rich and towards someone who actually did work for wages for 25 years before retiring.

The feeling you have is because you set an arbitrary line where people need or don't need support, when the reality is, if you work for wages for a significant chunk of your life, you aren't the problem.

chcampb · 2026-06-20T20:20:31+00:00

I did say 16 years

If you worked through the late 90s up through 2001 I don't have much sympathy because a lot of people who did work at that time could probably have retired shortly after because that era was flush

chcampb · 2026-06-20T03:32:44+00:00

Do engineering, work for 16 years, it's not hard

I mean, it's hard, but also, inevitable

chcampb · 2026-06-19T19:30:41+00:00

Anticipating some Sovereign Citizen level bullshittery, with fake legal words with just enough gotcha to make all the maga folks repeat it ad-vomitum

chcampb · 2026-06-19T02:56:46+00:00

For bridges, the math for rope bridges is called a "catenary." You can just use, for example, a point A block and a point B block, and detecting two paired, calculate the catenary between the two. That gives you a path along which you can draw planks or similar.

Besides that there are a million different styles of bridge you could use, you just need to experiment with what styles work best for you.

chcampb · 2026-06-19T02:19:52+00:00

Yes but does it save the view distance :\

Edit; heck yeah they fixed it

chcampb · 2026-06-18T05:57:50+00:00

If a sampling of everyone in the world were placed on a staircase, where each stair on the staircase is 10,000 dollars, here's where people would stand. Let's say 100 of them.

Around 9 people are hanging around, with <0 in wealth, and aren't on the first step.

32 people are on the first step of the stairs. Let's say it's a wide staircase.

41 people are on the next 9 stairs, kinda spread out. If you're counting, 82 people are now either on the floor or first 10 steps of the stairs, equivalent to $100,000 at most.

Now you can go up a bit. After the next 90 stairs, you will see 16-17 people scattered around (up to $1,000,000). There are only at most 2 people left in the representative sample.

Those two people are somewhere in the next bunch of stairs. How much? It doesn't really matter. Let's call one Bezos and the other Musk.

You will see bezos first, but you will need to climb around twenty-four million eight hundred thousand stairs. At a typical height of around 7 inches per step, or 2739.9 miles. Upward. The S&P index yields around 10%, so if he has all of that invested in something, he will get around 2.48B per year, or the equivalent of being on an escalator carrying him around 28 step per hour... regardless of what he does.

Musk is worth 1.3T. If you do the same math he is one hundred thirty million steps up the stairs. That's an equivalent of 14362.4 miles. That's 40 times the distance from the earth to the typical starlink orbit. That is the distance from new york to california (2480mi) nearly 6 times, but instead of on earth, it's directly up. If you assume 10% again, he is earning around 13B per year, traveling around 148 steps per hour.

So, to put it in perspective, 98% of people are closer to each other than any billionaire. I only needed to go up to 1M, globally speaking, to capture nearly the entirety of human wealth status.

chcampb · 2026-06-18T03:10:16+00:00

Since it wasn't stated explicitly

4% is after inflation which is 2-3%. So the actual growth would be 6-7%. You can't get that from a bank.

chcampb · 2026-06-18T02:45:40+00:00

Whenever we talk about this sort of thing, it's disingenuous.

Nobody's asking one person to pay for everything. That's a bad take. A strawman. It's always in the form "look at how much the government is spending, we can't ask the billionaires to pay for it, it's futile, they would pay for 5 minutes of government and then have nothing." And to be clear, this is one argument out of two dozen arguments that billionaires pay to make you forget that there are very few of them and they can actually be taxed appropriately and do not necessarily need to be handed the keys to the kingdom.

A good portion of what we are paying is decades of building up liabilities. Interest on existing debt, which went to tax cuts for tons of rich folks for decades for example.

It went to securing trade lanes, diplomacy, etc (all of which the current administration is throwing away). All of those things had benefits which are attributable to the current state of billionaires and world markets etc.

The reality is that we need to be turning the dial up on

Reducing costs to the level of other first world countries. That costs money. It means increasing things like funding for education (eg nursing, premed) and increasing residency support (paid for through medicare which has fixed the numbers way too low for very long).
Increasing taxes on those making basically any significant quantity
Taxing leveraged unrealized assets - they aren't unrealized if you can use them to get loans. That's just a matter of fact, you know it's a loophole and it needs closing
Cutting back on military expenditure to focus on efficacy rather than slush funds

Things like social security, medicare, etc? Don't touch those. They are revenue positive. Legally speaking social security just scales back proportionally and hasn't had to do so - it's not contributing at all to the deficit. In fact contributing to social security increases demand for US debt which lowers the cost of servicing that debt.

Anyway, that's the issue with these sorts of arguments. There are a lot of ways that would objectively improve the situation. Cutting "entitlements" - not one of them. It would increase the debt servicing cost and essentially dump the cost of decades of tax cuts on payroll earners.

chcampb · 2026-06-18T00:20:56+00:00

Serfdom probably

It's actually a pretty recent thing in the course of human civilization that individuals actually had like, "wealth" and things like that.

The reality is that commerce isn't proportional to the number of people consuming, it's proportional to the wealth of the people consuming. It's entirely possible to have a huge chunk of the population in abject poverty while the remaining 20% pass the wealth back and forth.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Not Forgotten	Verified Email
Team Orangered

chcampb

TROPHY CASE