HN user

dadoum

482 karma
Posts0
Comments127
View on HN
No posts found.

Good article, but there is one step in the reasoning that rubs me the wrong way:

This equation might seem a little hard to solve, but at this point you might notice something funny: $equation$

So, if F′(x)log⁡(x)=1,F′(x)log(x)=1, then

Thus, our mystery function F(x)F(x) obeys F′(x)log⁡(x)=1.F′(x)log(x)=1. From here you deduce F′(x)=1/log⁡(x),F′(x)=1/log(x), so by integrating you get

But it does not seems that F needs to have that trait, just that 1 works in that instance. It's sufficient but not necessary. How can you tell that it is that simple solution which is the right one?

I tried to one-shot the first test (the Rubik's Cube test) with LucidQuery's Swift model, to test it, as there are not much benchmarks about it and that they brag a lot about it, and I was pleasantly surprised to see it achieving a result similar to Grok 4.5 but in one shot (there is the same issue that if you scramble twice the solve button does not work anymore, but it got it in one shot).

Though it crunched most of the free quota, 47111 tokens, so I couldn't make multiple attempts.

DMA and DSA are very easy to comply with, there is an easy heuristic function to know if your AI startup is affected:

    |_: Company| false
DMA and DSA only applies to companies explicitly designated as gatekeepers according to EU law. There are criteria for that, about scale and market control, but generally you really don't have to worry, you will see that coming from very far.

VSORA already finished their inference chip if you want to take a look at what they're doing. They got a handful produced at TSMC 5nm node. They are expected to be offered by Scaleway at some point in the near future (alongside with other French components from the AION consortium, like a SiPearl Rhea1 CPU and an Eviden Bull BXIv3 interconnect, all of them are also already produced, only integration is remaining). It will still probably take some more time though, as the AI stack needs to be finalized (ZML), but I am surprised that those developments are not being much discussed.

I don't think this narrative stands, industry and social programs coexisted for a very long time. I actually believe the opposite. It sacrificed its industry for intra-EU fairness and integration. A lot of industries were very reliant on gov grants and other state social programs that have got scarcer as EU gained power.

Facts, but the Europeans, tankies, and America haters here will never admit it.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

May we scale smoothly, exponentially and uneventfully through A[SI]

That sentence sounds weird to me. I can't really put my finger on why, maybe the combination of adverbs, or just the fact of writing the desire of scaling as a company so directly. It feels (to me) like openly claiming their selfish goals. Or maybe I am just misinterpreting and they are referring to the whole humanity as "We" (but knowing Broadcom and in a lesser extent OpenAI doings, I am not convinced).

So I downloaded the model and tried a few Math prompts. The simple addition was a little tedious because it checked multiple times that the calculation was right, I then gave it a quite long integral to solve but which is straightforward if you know the techniques, and it got it in 5 minutes on my Macbook Pro M4 Pro 24 GB, I just had to increase the context window. I finally tried giving it a full math exam but here it wouldn't score much points as it takes so many shortcuts it writes wrong steps in its answers. Still pretty good as it generally identifies what it should do, but I did not try anything in that weight class before so I can't really talk if that's impressive in the full picture.

I am also working on a programming language with that no hidden behavior philosophy at the forefront (along with a few other things), but radically different on everything else, so I may have a few design choices to question.

I think that your conception of cleverness is too wide basically. It's true that, in my opinion, any new programming language today should stop people from C-style "cleverness". But there are languages where the clever programs are actually the pretty ones. For example, the borrow-checker in Rust encourages good code design (and yet it still can be better). And most importantly, algebraic types constitute a radical improvement over classic C-style code. You may think that they hide what's happening, as they have a hidden tag and could be built from C structs and C unions. But after thinking a lot about it, thinking about the tag is actually not thinking about the program's behavior. There is a difference between the program you want to write, and what needs to happen on the machine to compute it. I could probably write a lot about the solution I found to reconcile both opinions, but my project is a lot newer so I can't redirect you to anything yet. But I think that by wanting a more grounded language, you are maybe dismissing too many ideas that would actually encourage programs to be clear and transparent while still not doing anything automatically with magic (and at the same time, would dismiss incorrect programs, that C can express but that machines cannot execute).

Btw, I understand that I am probably not the target of your language, so I won't expand much further unless you want.

I want to highlight that maybe today, big conglomerates are rare, but this is also because during the late-20th century, the trend was to break up conglomerates to increase competitiveness and improve financial performance of companies by focusing on the best businesses. If you look at the situation before that moment, Japan's situation would still be on the extreme side when compared to the other developed nations at the time, but not as unique I think.

In retrospect, I tend to think that this take was naive. It probably increased financial performance but it discouraged taking risks, and pushed the multidisciplinary skills out of companies in a way that is hard to reverse, inducing knowhow loss and probably slowed down innovation. But this is only my personal analysis and I am no economist.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your algorithm looks to me like it would work fine with posits? You would just get a NaR value instead of both NaN and inf, because div-by-zero and sqrt(-) both yield NaR (the difference here with floats is that it is unique and can get compared to NaR), and so it just works fine?

The compiler has been written by a lot of very smart people, it is very well tested and sometimes has even been formally proven to output exactly what the language specifies, and I have a mental model of what the code it outputs does in relation to what I write.

Nobody can be sure of what the LLM will output for a certain prompt. If you don't review what it outputs, it will not necessarily match your expectations. You could argue that it is the same as when you assign an intern to the task, but I personally would check what the intern writes (and in my experience they are more reliable than current AIs, of course not as quick).

In general, in Europe there is research infrastructure that I think could be used at a medium scale for important applications (but I am not a professional).

There is the NanoIC research line at imec (2nm), CEA-Leti incomming 7nm FD-SOI pilot lines, and in terms of full production lines, Global Foundries Dresden (12 nm), ESMC (12 nm, in construction), and the various FeRAM/FMC projects I can't keep track of (Neumonda for example).

I would be more worried about designs, because outside of ARM (and Imagination Tech, both in the UK), I don't know any competitive European designs. (about routers NXP already makes router chips with accelerators on top of ARM cores, used for example in the Mono Gateway, but they are fabbed on old TSMC nodes)

My main interaction tool with the system is the pointer. Reaching out for the keyboard is something I do when I want to type, but for example when I am consuming content on my computer I just keep a single hand on the mouse or the trackpad. In that case shortcuts are just plain annoying.

On KDE, something nice is that if you have a maximized window and a panel on the top of the screen, I can drag that panel to grab the window (or maybe it was a setting of Latte dock or something). And since window titlebars nowadays can be cluttered with buttons, it is a predictable way to grab those windows only using the mouse.

The paragraph in the beginning reminded me of the 5-step story structure I was taught at school, and I just noticed that it is only featured on the French Wikipedia page [0]. In my experience it worked quite well for classical linear stories, and highlighting it in a text back at school also scored a lot of marks during exams, so now I am somewhat trained at recognizing it.

[0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%A9ma_narratif (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%A9ma_quinaire is also describing the same thing)

Just Use Go 3 months ago

I would like someone to explain me Go. Really, I will use strong words but that's really what I feel.

The syntax changes a lot from the C one, and I can't see any reason for it. To me, it looks unstructured, with the lack of colons for example. It ignores memory safety, it feels like it ignored all of the typing system research since C, no discriminated union, and structures and types in general are heavy to write. It encourages bad patterns, errors out on mundane things like an unused variable, forces you to handle errors with a lot of code while not catching much more than C in terms of bug-prone practices. The package/module system is a nightmare for contributing to open source projects. Modifying a dependency to find a bug is very hard, even swapping a dependency (version) is annoying.

And what do you get from all of this compared to C? A garbage collector, tuples, and goroutines. No metaprogramming (aside from generics, and that was a whole story), interop with C is limited. To me, it looks like it does not focus on the algorithms, but on the code implementation, which is imo what leads us into poor programming and missing critical logic flaws, because the logic is buried. I may have forgotten other gripes I got while working with Go, but honestly, if I wanted all of that, I would pick D, at least it interops well with C and has metaprogramming (and has been made earlier, which excuses a little the lack of certain things).

But really, I am open to someone explaining me how they enjoy Go. Because I feel like I should be wrong as I see most people (which, for some of them, I know are clever) praise Go.

Edit: I added modal expressions to make it clear that it is my opinion.

Sorry I have a question that is a little off-topic: what's the value of generating an image of a laptop on a desk? That's not like it's particularly relevant, when you could have integrated a screen shot of your set-up (like the same one you put on a few of your repos) or something more unique, and even if you want to show that, it's easy to find similar images with the same vibe, so I guess it's for some fun I missed in the process?

Ti-84 Evo 3 months ago

I don't know either what they meant, but for comparison NumWorks calculators are clocked at 216 MHz (100 MHz for the older models, and 550 MHz for some of the latest ones, but not everywhere), so it doesn't look that much out of the ordinary, maybe a little underpowered from my experience with the first NumWorks but eh idk it's a calculator and unlike the first NumWorks they don't try to do CAS.

Europe has had many decades since then to innovate in technology and they have still not done so. They are almost completely dependent on American and Asian tech. And that is not changing anytime soon.

You are stating that like this has been the state of things for a century. The dependence on American and Asian tech has been a gradual process, that accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s. Before that time, every European countries had their own tech industries able to compete with the tech giants (Nokia, Siemens, Grundig, Alcatel, Thomson, Olivetti, Philips, Ericsson, Amstrad and that's only citing a few of the ones that marked history forever, only in the field consumer electronics, a lot of them back in the day were competing but ended up fading away, and also others were everywhere in the tech industry before without being really exposed to consumers).