Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
2
Comments
722
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Weird argument they're making, since distillation doesn't give you the AI. It just gives you the style of the AI.

    If you distilled Google's newest Gemini into a GPT-2 model, all it would do is just sound like it. Your GPT-2 model isn't suddenly going to be as capable as the model you distilled.

  • They usually do. They just do the same thing a lot of nuclear reactors do and also evaporatively cool one end of the heat exchange loop.

  • It's very flat. Did Voyager land on it a little too hard?

  • It's also a win-win for the company. Happy, well-fed workers work better, and hang around longer.

  • I would be curious how that will work with anti-trust legislation. At least currently, there's an argument that Sony does not prevent people from buying games from other sources, or other publishers from publishing physical games for their consoles.

    That's no longer the case if they switch to a purely digital model, since they become the sole source of all the games on PlayStation, and have unilateral authority over them. The only place you can get a game on a digital model is Sony.

  • Such a unit exists and it is also called tokens, that can measure the capability of a model and the size of a running operation in a model.

    I think you might have it mixed up with parameters, rather than tokens. Parameters are how big the model is, and are an indirect measure of how capable it is. Bigger models tend to be more capable.

    But what they use for calculating your bill is something different today.

    The tokenizer varies a little, but I don't think it's changed measurably from tokens. You pay an amount for a million tokens worth of processing. The tokeniser difference just alters how text is converted to tokens, but the tokens themselves don't change all that much.

    If anything, I'd honestly put the issue more with reasoning chains in models, where they basically babble to themselves inside of a

    <think>

    tag, that most interfaces hide/collapse. It makes them work better, but vastly increases the amount of tokens per operation.

    They have been getting longer and more sophisticated with newer models. So you might have a model now that basically repeats the output multiple times whilst refining and drafting the non-reasoning output.

    If you're making it generate a lot, that'll balloon the usage, and thus price.

  • We had hardware piracy back in the day, when there were CPUs you may have been able to unlock extra cores on.

    Then the companies started lasering them off so that was no longer possible.

  • I'd be surprised if it was. The man was a symptom, not the root cause of the problem, and he certainly didn't do it all by himself.

    He was the stereotypical man in the underworld who could get you anything, as long as you could afford the price.

    Others would almost certainly have filled in the gap he left by now.

  • They do, but there may be better local alternatives, since the shipping can be quite high.

  • It seems more like a bad editor/insufficient proofreading.

    That's the kind of comment I sometimes make if I rephrase it in the draft, but don't check to make sure I remove all of the original sentence before posting.

  • The case recently resolved in the plaintiff's favour. though Google intends to appeal, so it's up in the air how things go.

    And if it's this easy to poison the AIs, imagine how easy it is for someone with an actual agenda to mislead people in ways that aren't as fantastical and quickly spotted.

    Equally concerning is that these systems are now seeing use in a range of things. There are lawyers who use it to file suits when they shouldn't be, and a US lawmaker was recently found to be using AI to draft laws. What happens when things like that make it into the models training data, rather than just being pulled in by RAG/web tools? They'd become part of the base knowledge of all the models of that line going forward.

    It's funny when it's outlandish. The question becomes what happens when it isn't? Even without an agenda, what happens when it cites an outdated/incorrect source, or assumes that someone making a joke was correct, and ends up drawing from that when filling a lawsuit/drafting a law?

  • I don't think people would have minded very much if they had taken one of their existing chassis and swapped it for an electric drivetrain, but kept the design mostly the same.

    This thing looks fine as a standard passenger EV

    I'd honestly disagree there. It looks like someone wearing oversized clothes, which isn't helped by its colour scheme.

    It stands out in a bad way, compared to a modern passenger EV, which arguably looks nicer because it's less awkward.

  • But ask a mainstream manufacturer to make an EV car and they look stupid half the time.

    IMO, it's probably more that they overdesign them. They want the EV to look futuristic and unique compared to their regular cars, but their cars already look like that to some degree, and so they overcook the design into looking like some science fiction vehicle. Take the Ferrari, for example, they tried to make it have a floating arch where the hood would normally be.

    That's fine for a movie or video game, but in real life, coupled with the practical limits, it just doesn't look very good.

  • step one: Isolate the gene for penis length.

    That does assumes that there is a dedicated gene, and that the gene is singular.

    It's hardly impossible for it to be governed by multiple genes, like height is.

    step three: using CRISPR gene editing, formulate the necessary edits and then bioengineer a retrovirus delivery method.

    Only if it's something that can be altered later. Gene editing is not magic that can instantly transform someone if something gets flipped.

    It's entirely plausible that the genes responsible might only be active at certain points in time, and after that, altering it makes the cells have different genes, but they won't do much with it.

    Similar to how altering the gene responsible for how many fingers you have doesn't cause you to lose or sprout new fingers.

  • Poorly optimised is also extra bad in today's climate, where the cost of hardware is just through the roof. People simply can't afford a new, more powerful computer.

  • Lasers would be quite risky. Anything that powerful would also instantly obliterate peoples' vision if there's a reflection and it gets them in the eye.

  • If it's using Bluetooth to knacker them, then all the nearby Bluetooth devices would be vulnerable.

    Medical equipment these days also can feature Bluetooth for mobile connectivity, and you can't exactly go without your defibrillator, hearing aids, or insulin pump.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Saturn can have a little chicken cutlet, as a treat.