HN user
He didn't. That's why the article exists. You have to do the science to see if it does.
He was asking the question - do we see gains across other tasks? The underlying question was: Is the additional attention given to this specific task creating a false impression of progress?
Well, yes, but remember there is the reinforcement learning that is applied after, and the system prompts that will bend the results.
Leadership in European countries is so routinely in conflict with their people who understand the inalienable rights of the people so well. I wonder where that comes from.
You're not wrong that the American public is largely out of touch with the fundamentals of a free society.
only need to charge it once every 2 days
The bar for Pebble/Garmin users is multiples of weeks. I typically charge my Garmin every 2-3 weeks, depending on how much activity I've been engaging it. If the battery is at 10%, that means I usually have a day or two to remember to slap it on a charger.
It's just categorically a wrong statement. Just because someone knows how to play a musical instrument, I'm not sure why it would make any sense that they would understand what makes a good music video - they are a completely different medium.
You might be able to discuss asthetics from a music theory standpoint because you are "classically trained", again, it is just a weird mismatch that stood out for me recently, but I think everyone is a little more paranoid lately.
So, how is that relevant to the part that is generated by AI?
I'm seeing these type of comments a lot more. A type of comment where it seems like the "user" (commentor) makes a categorically wrong comment about the linked article that would be sort of right if it were a different medium. Clearly whatever was used here triggered on the "music" part, but didn't understand what the article was really about. Typically it goes beyond just not reading the article (as in this case)
I'd assume that it was a bad LLM take, but it looks like the rest of the comments are normal.
compute/manufacturing capacity for current nodes which doesn’t age nearly as well
I mean, compute depreciates, but I think there is zero chance that the value of inference or training is going to fall to zero. Market discovery will find the right price provided the market has the right degree of freedom. Given the type of market it is, I don't see how that won't be the case.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
The federal government.
"We're going to change every industry, please take us seriously"
produces a Tamagotchi
Doesn't have to be arbitrary, and managing users requires a lot more nuance (endless permission toggling/configuring) than just running a VM that is more of a whitelist.
I actually saw that after I finished reading through. Then I thought:
That's exactly what an LLM would want you think. (this is a weak joke) It's a good article.
Particular categories of land will always be scarce by definition. Not all of us can live in off the coast of the Mediterranean in a sprawling villa.
I was genuinely expecting this to be LLM-generated.
It isn’t?
In a corporate environment they may not have that option
Because you don't have a right to know everything about me, follow me to my home, my purchasing preferences, and so on and so forth.
Flared from oil production.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that "we're already flaring off the gas", but increasing dependency on the process is the wrong direction all the same.
Do you know if you used sol/terra/luna?
20 watts for inference AND training!
While I think this is true, remember as we get more efficient we just decide to scale even bigger. So more GPUs, and more efficient.
I agree with the sibling comment, effiency is probably the more important component at this point. We are hitting not just a practical engineering roadblock for scaling with current technology, I think we have definitely hit a financial and logistical roadblock for up scaling with the number of GPUs (on an immediate basis)
No, because you again provided a different framing. “What moral system” is a very different question from “explain how or why this activity is immoral”
To be clear: Morgan Stanley says that they are skeptical of this, but that’s their perception of where the value is supposed to come from based on SpaceX’s pitch
Proposing false dichotomies isn't really an argument. You've created a strawman. There is a balance to be struck.
You are arguing in bad faith. He wasn't just trying to cut costs, he was cutting oversight of himself, and actively destroying projects that saved lives.
No, you left out the bit about it being a claim of catholicism. You left out the relevant context, which was arguing out of bad faith. It would be easy to write it in the context of what a particular religion believes.
Such a good point. Disinformation and trying to destroy sources of truth is just part of the puzzle. Often the worst damage is just "well, both sides are bad" -- because it just tells people not to listen to either side, or it is too much work.
The end goal: they want to push that you must sacrifice your rights to a monarch or authoritarian person for order and safety.
They are stealing/imitating someone elses brand.
Amping up an emotional connection is great for business.
Why do you think THEY need to dominate via an emotional connection?
I was hopeful that they avoided the well known sultry voice this go around, but alas. There is little hope for these companies.
The full duplex is awesome, and the feedback that it is getting what you're saying is ok, but in some of the demos was a little overkill.
I'll agree that using the "Golden Girls" was at least more entertaining than the usual pitch.
Once I had a pair of the continuous loop sweats, I turned all my sweats into the same. My drawstrings always seem to end up getting retracted into the pants.
Website generates whole page and in some cases inescapable notifications with iOS/firefox.