I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect
I recall OpenAI saying to a courtroom judge that modern AI requires training off copyrighted material. And obviously the AI labs cannot just release those.
Distlled models (aka models that train themselves off the responses from other AI models) could probably release all the AI responses they used for training, since afaik AI generated content is not copyrightable..
However I suspect that most modern models are built from previous models. For example Claude Fable is probably based on Claude Sonnet or something. And for a downstream model to be fully "open source" and reproducible, you would need to reproduce the upstream model too. So even if a downstream model didn't use copyrighted data (eg it only used distills), one of the upstream models likely did.
maybe just "if velocity < 0.01, find which side is closest to the floor, and if its within 1mm of the floor, take the opposite side (the one facing up) as the answer"
The only edge case I can think of is if it gets close to balancing on an edge, and then finally tips over to one side or the other. But in that case I don't think the face closest to the floor would be within 1mm of the floor, so it should still work.
I think of it like age verification. Slipperly slope to a proprietary kernel-level "security compliance module" on all devices, aka the end of general computation.
Can you predict the resolution when it is close enough to settled? Worst case maybe have an algorithm that estimates the probability of each face ending up on top, and if one face is overwhelmingly more probably, choose it. Otherwise let it settle using your physics engine
How does it lead to dependency hell? I thought the point was that it didn't share dependencies with the host, so different apps could have different versions of the same package and everything would still work.
The point is that in a real software engineering process, specs and requirements are rarely defined precisely from the start, and the programmer should be able to identify the gaps and clarify them. A generic answer doesn't help as much as a clarifying question.
A common but amateur mistake is to just make assumptions about how something should work and then forge ahead. As a programmer in a company, you are building things for somebody else (your boss, your client), so you need to ask them first.
I just re-read their post and yes you're right, in which case I disagree with them. "Perfect" is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect