I think it could be argued that the Mac contributes nearly nothing to Apple's current trillion-dollar valuation. If the Mac was spun out into it's own business it would be lucky to crest a $100B market cap.
Have you at least opened Activity Monitor to confirm that Zed is the issue? Often times a misbehaving LSP, broken hardware acceleration or mdworker_shared can impact your system's performance.
Running Zed on Linux has gotten pretty good for my uses. It flies on my shitty dual-core netbook, maybe I haven't updated to the same build as you have...?
> I look forward to their version of Nvidia GPUs at half the price.
Arguably China doesn't have the technology required to manufacture 30-series GPUs with the yield or unit cost Nvidia did. I wouldn't hold my breath for Chinese silicon to outperform Nvidia's 40 or 50 series cards any time soon.
I really don't. Notion is one of those tools that entrepreneurs gravitate towards for it's simplicity, and then engineers rip out for being a parasite. At the end of the day it's an overpriced CMS that can very easily be replaced by any number of different alternatives. Their "taste" is just as overrated and overpriced as Apple's is.
And I'll be damned if Tanta isn't having his tweets used for training Elon's AI. The parochial circle regresses as it goes around, I'm done acknowledging the make-believe barriers we pretended the internet clung to.
You post it, others consume it. Same as it ever was.
The situation didn't change when it was search index crawlers being called-out. At the end of the day, this sort of "abuse" is native to the world of the internet; like you said, it's decades old at this point.
HN will cheer on a lot of things that are counter-intuitive to their wellbeing; open-weight models doesn't feel like one of them. You can't protest AI (or search engines) because after long enough people can't do their job without them. The correct course of action is to name-and-shame, not write pithy engineering blogs begging people to stop. People won't stop.
That is a party trick, that Hatsune Miku does every year for thousands of loving fans. The fact that an American company figured out vocaloid is not making any nerds lose their minds.
There's a reason why GPT-4o is not taking over YouTube and social media with it's incredible capabilities; nobody cares.
I would legitimately argue they are competitive. GPT-J and GPT-Neo are both fundamentally quite similar to modern LLMs, and when compared against other 4b and 8b parameter models I would genuinely champion the quality of their responses over their contemporaries.
> that the initial world model is flawed is the known starting point: at the beginning, it only knows it has "heard" a lot of information.
If it has no concrete reasoning, how is this looped revision intended to be more-accurate than a zero-shot guess?
I agree with the fundamental principle of not trusting input data from the start, but that just puts us back in square-one where we generate non-authoritative results dependent on a series of autoregressive parameters. It might generate better-reasoned results, but the outcome will be equally unreliable and prone to hallucination.
I'm someone that used both BERT and GPT-2 5 years ago, and am incredibly disappointed by how little progress the industry has made in that time. GPT-J and GPT-NEO are still arguably competitive with the latest AI models you can use today; that's sad.
Cryptocurrency apologists also used this line of logic. "Yes, today the value of crypto is nothing... but imagine where it will be in five years!" Then we all wait 5 years, and cryptocurrency is still the victim of it's own mindset. Like cryptocurrency, I think LLMs have "technically" solved what they set out to do; generate readable text. But you need more than a solution in search of a problem; there isn't really that much demand for marginally truthful text in the same way completely decentralized currency isn't really necessary for the average well-meaning civilian. I'd even go further and argue that introducing AI into our daily lives requires you to replace something else, something that was probably more accurate and better-designed than the AI replacing it.
If 5 years is a "blink of an eye" for the industry, the entire field will be dead within 18 months. VC just moves that fast.
For one, Deepdream is cool but was never designed to be photorealistic. It was intentionally degraded to create psychadelic imagery, unlike the contemporary computer vision models we know today.
And for two... LLMs are also getting to be pretty old. BERT and GPT-2 are both more than 5 years old, and still have fundamental issues that we can't be sure are solvable. They lie confidently, they conflate facts and fiction, they create entirely made-up scenarios when asked about real-world happenings. It should be extremely alarming that the only successful AI strategy to-date has been scaling-up an already inefficient model.
AI will improve with time, but it seems entirely plausible to me that we've already hit the proverbial "bathtub curve" of progress. I genuinely cannot imagine what a "generational leap" in LLM technology would look like, outside of fixing the hallucination issues.
In a traditional sense (not like Lavander), AI is applied in combat in extremely specific situations where it is almost impossible to mess-up. Computer-vision bombs have to corroborate their target with GPS or INS information, and mostly serve to get a solid TV lock on a target; there is no LLM to jailbreak here. Cruise missiles are a dangerous asset, but that's the case with or without AI; we design these dangerous weapons specifically so they can't be overriden or controlled by third-parties, AI included.
In theory, you're right. If an LLM was given complete control over ballistic missiles, there is a nonzero chance that something could go horribly wrong. But this is where we take two steps back and realize that no rational country will give AI complete control over their weapons. It would be an extremely human-based design failure to hand over control of nuclear weapons to a statistics model designed to be wrong.
At this point, you can practically predict what OpenAI will announce to the press next. It's the same Skinner/Chalmers routine over-and-over-and-over again.
"Good lord, what is happening in there? Life-changing AI implementations that could destroy all human life as we know it? Localized entirely within your laboratory?"
Hell, even Perfect Dark before that. I'm not one to defend Halo as the most-innovative, especially with the disproportionate amount of funding and manpower that went into it.
That being said, I think Halo deserves commendation for bringing a lot to the mainstream without compromise. The same people that casually enjoyed Halo were probably not also playing Goldeneye or Arma in their free time. And marketing be damned, Halo is fun even today. Hopping in a match of CE makes me lament how little team-based shooters have progressed in the past 20 years.
I'm a hardcore Quake/Unreal apologist, but you gotta hand something to Halo and Halo 2. Gorgeous shader-based graphics for the time, vehicles, absurd arsenals, wide-open maps, and 16 player(!!!) LAN play. It's a game that would have sold like gangbusters on PC, and was only that much more successful for being well-supported on console too.
One might even argue that the success of Halo is what forced arena shooters like Counter Strike and Team Fortress to evolve or die. There was more at stake after it released, and outside the competitive circles there wasn't much demand for the FPS equivalent of Wheaties.