- I don’t understand why most people in this thread think that this would be such a big deal. It will not change the market in significant negative or positive ways. AMD has been at their heals for a couple of decades and is more competitive than ever, they will simply fill their shoes. Most games consoles have been AMD centric for a long time regardless, they’ve always been fairly dominant in the mid range and they have a longstanding reputation of having the best price/performance value for gamers.
Overall, I think that AMD is more focused and energetic than their competitors now. They are very close to taking over Intel on their long CPU race, both in the datacenter and consumer segments, and Nvidia might be next in the coming 5 years, depending on how the AI bubble develops.
- Indeed there are more explicit versions of such mechanisms, which I prefer, otherwise there’s always a bit of paranoia about recursion without assurance that the compiler will handle it properly.
- For people that like functional style and using recursion for everything, TCO is a must. Otherwise there’s no way around imperative loops if you want decent performance and not having to worry about the stack limit.
Perhaps calling it an “optimization” is misleading. Certainly it makes code faster, but more importantly it’s syntax sugar to translate recursion into loops.
- It was quite different when I tried it again. Still fairly fixated on the last month, but it is definitely better.
- I did like it, but for me it was fixated on 3-5 comments from the last 1-2 months that got a few more upvotes. It didn’t really work as an overview for the year. Still, a pretty cool thingy :)
- I don't think that's true. Consider that the "reasoning" behaviour trained with Reinforcement Learning in the last generation of "thinking" LLMs is trained on quite narrow datasets of olympiad math / programming problems and various science exams, since exact unambiguous answers are needed to have a good reward signal, and you want to exercise it on problems that require non-trivial logical derivation or calculation. Then this reasoning behaviour gets generalised very effectively to a myriad of contexts the user asks about that have nothing to do with that training data. That's just one recent example.
Generally, I use LLMs routinely on queries definitely no-one has written about. Are there similar texts out there that the LLM can put together and get the answer by analogy? Sure, to a degree, but at what point are we gonna start calling that intelligent? If that's not generalisation I'm not sure what is.
To what degree can you claim as a human that you are not just imitating knowledge patterns or problem-solving patterns, abstract or concrete, that you (or your ancestors) have seen before? Either via general observation or through intentional trial-and-error. It may be a conscious or unconscious process, many such patterns get backed into what we call intuition.
Are LLMs as good as humans at this? No, of course, sometimes they get close. But that's a question of degree, it's no argument to claim that they are somehow qualitatively lesser.
- LLMs certainly struggle with tasks that require knowledge that is not provided to them (at significant enough volume/variance to retain it). But this is to be expected of any intelligent agent, it is certainly true of humans. It is not a good argument to support the claim that they are Chinese Rooms (unthinking imitators). Indeed, the whole point of the Chinese Room thought experiment was to consider if that distinction even mattered.
When it comes to of being able to do novel tasks on known knowledge, they seem to be quite good. One also needs to consider that problem-solving patterns are also a kind of (meta-)knowledge that needs to be taught, either through imitation/memorisation (Supervised Learning) or through practice (Reinforcement Learning). They can be logically derived from other techniques to an extent, just like new knowledge can be derived from known knowledge in general, and again LLMs seem to be pretty decent at this, but only to a point. Regardless, all of this is definitely true of humans too.
- The motivation itself is quite fresh and compelling even as a standalone article.
- I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I wish you luck.
I suppose I was frustrated due to a mismatch of expectations and the fact that I do things like this every day with AI, it feels rather trivial to me.
But I can see how it may appeal to a wider market. I remember coming across a couple websites that were doing this automatically pre-AI, simply detecting who I was and displaying it in some basic ways. And yeah it was a bit weird, but it sure stuck in my mind for a long time, and it was a data-broker type company anyways, it triggered the thought "well if it can do this with me, it must have good data about everyone".
And I can see the more general case for B2B to surface the right use-cases for the user and such. I've interacted with many people with a business profile that would certainly click a "just show me what I care about" button, hell many technical people would love it too just to remove all the whishy-washy hype language and just see what the thing does.
- I was quite underwhelmed by the demo, I'll try to be as constructive as I can.
The core functionality I expect for such a service is for it to automatically detect who I am, I've seen other marketing services do this, there are ways to map IPs to companies and other techniques. Of course, it's rather creepy and not super helpful to the user, but it may have its (shock) value for making certain kinds of products stand out.
And the personalisation itself... Anyone can make a call to an AI + Search service and generate a new version of the HTML with some slightly modified text, which was not all that different, appealing or accurate in the tests I made. I would suggest upgrading to a higher quality model, proper AI can do much better than this if given the right context.
I suppose it's nice that you are making this easy, if you built your site with a visual website builder this wouldn't be completely trivial to replicate. But still, not a very defensible business for now. I suppose that with good marketing and a serious roadmap to beef this up it could be a viable idea.
- Remember Conglomerates? It just keeps changing name.
Free competitive markets are not an emergent natural phenomenon, they are a technology of civilised societies, and without governments constantly keeping markets free, we keep reverting back to to robber barons and eventually petty warlord kings, that's the natural low-energy state of humans if you let it go unchecked.
- In practice, just the act supporting the lesser of the two evils has brought so much more evil.
If you want to do good, fine, but make sure you are smart about it and actually achieve that aim. The US has shown that its not good at this, regardless of intentions, they should just refrain from action until they get their shit together.
- No, that's not at all what I said, read it back please.
My point is that history has shown that such action is extremely counterproductive if you actually care about doing good for people under such regimes, particularly when the decision is made impulsively by a single country with a biased perspective and no consistent system or criteria to make sure it's a smart thing to do.
Anyone that supports such action is using inconsistent moralistic arguments to justify blatant power grabs. It may be well intentioned, but you are just making yourself feel good by fighting the bad guys, while doing even more harm to innocent people and making it all worse in the long-run. Very American indeed.
And frankly, right now, the US is not exactly in a position to be a judge of what is moral in the first place.
- He did just get the FIFA Peace Price that was created out of thin air this year :)
Yes FIFA as in the football/soccer league.
- When US initiates aggressive unilateral military action on other sovereign countries, US bad yes, of course.
Old-school UN-led "police action" as in Korea is one thing, at least there's a somewhat universal institution making judgements on which countries need to be "saved" under a consistent legal framework, but that's such a slippery slope too.
The US does not have the authority to make such decisions and definitely does not have a good track record of them. It's just vigilantism at a large scale, at best. Even when being charitable about intent, the US did do some things in legitimate good faith, at least partially, the results are always catastrophic. There's been no instance of actually positive outcomes for the local population, it has always destroyed the country for decades to come and set the stage for significantly worse regimes.
- While I like the sentiment, we have to be somewhat pragmatic. The sanctions on Russia have had a deep impact on the EU economy, mainly the energy crisis and other connected systemic consequences. Germany and much of central and eastern EU became highly dependent on Russian natural gas over the last 20 years, and higher energy prices in general have been quite harmful to the already precarious industrial and agricultural sectors (high-tech farming as in NL, while quite profitable, is very energy intensive and sensitive to tightening margins).
Most of EU (and UK) is on (or near) recession right now, except for some southern EU countries which are doing surprisingly well, although relative to a long period of hardship after the 2008 crisis. It's not an acute recession, but there's no clear way out of this stagnation on the horizon, and the people are really starting to feel the squeeze.
Of course, the root cause of this is much deeper, the Russia situation was just the spark. EU industry has been complacent for decades, believing that while less competitive on costs and scale we still had the technological edge, which ironically led to severe underinvestment in R&D. And giving up on nuclear is backfiring badly too.
I do think the (shrinking) majority still believes that the (limited) actions against Russia were worthwhile, since they are not threatening sovereignty in general, they are threatening EU's territorial integrity at our doorstep. It is unacceptable, and while it is a heavy price, not retaliating would have much more catastrophic consequences.
But cutting off trade with US over Venezuela? Forget about it, EU's dependency on US is orders of magnitude higher than it was with Russia, it would be absolutely deadly to the EU economy.
- By the “sewage” analogy you are expressing the assumption that the vast majority of what people write is outright toxic and that being exposed to it is actively hurtful.
My experience on the internet does not reflect this, this is a very pessimistic view of people, bordering on perl-clutching.
Most raw user generated feeds are not great sure, but it’s mostly mediocre jokes and mildly provocative takes from bored trolls, and that’s usually a loud minority. Most people either lurk or make a modest effort now and then, particularly in niche communities like this where most people aware of it will already be fairly deeply immersed in tech. People have better things to do than to constantly be aggressively offensive, I imagine it gets old fast, and you really need to go out of your way to write something that legitimately hurts an adult.
Sure of course there are corners that are cesspits of hate, but they tend to band together and it is quite hard to bump into them accidentally. And when you do, you just feel slightly disgusted for a second, turn back and forget about it.
Some moderation is critical, but it usually needs to only be enforced for a few bad apples, most people act with decency and common sense, even when anonymous. And yes including people with lesser means and/or from shitty countries. People from different cultures are mostly the same when you peal away superficial customs, and I find much more in common with someone of my age with similar interests from the other side of the world, than with a grumpy old neighbor frankly. At least that’s my experience.
- I do think it's an interesting idea, I'm just musing.
I think a worker-owned for-profit union might quickly start hiring other kinds of workers and become a regular worker-owned company, because often selling actual end products and services is more profitable than selling one flavour of labour.
Are you arguing that the workers being significant shareholders of companies is a better alternative to unions? Or that there should be a special kind of corporation that is a for-profit union and has some restrictions of who they can accept and what they can offer?
It's an intriguing twist on communism: instead of abolishing private property and having "the people" (the authoritarian government) own everything, you keep private ownership and free-markets, but you restrict company ownership to the active employees, instead of capital investors and/or initial founders.
I'm not making any value judgement here, again I'm just musing.
- Great and terrible things have been done from:
> We did it not because it was easy, but because we thought it was easy.
They’ve become a big name now with AI, but they were never the only game in town in their home markets. They had an edge on the high-end so their name had some prestige, but market share wise it was quite even. Even with AI, they have a temporary head start but I wouldn’t be surprised if they get crowded in the coming years, what they do is not magic.