It happened sometime between whenever we observed it and 2600 years ago. It's equally valid to say that light travels from there to here instantly (but takes twice as long on the outbound trip) or the reverse. Taking the average is just a convention.
Hence why the articles title - which is based on when the light cone of the event reaches us - is actually the better way to think about it. At least there's no "depends how you feel like defining the speed of light today" in it.
The comment you're replying to wasn't arguing rust > GCed languages (e.g. C# or whatever game dev language you are thinking of). It was arguing rust > non-GC non-safe languages (e.g. zig).
Oh I really did mean "anthropic" and "fable class" in that paragraph. Different people in Anthropic's position would do things differently. But they're them and I think there's pretty good reason to think they really are the only ones with a model of that class so far.
Maybe they'd get the same numeric improvements and bug fixes today (or maybe not, or maybe they'd get even more since the LLM isn't spending time rewriting correct code).
But they wouldn't get a change to the structural issues that created the issues in the first place. They'd end up "ke[eping] fixing these kinds of bugs one-off in perpetuity".
I'm not very familiar with Hylo, but I think it's in the opposite direction from rust than what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting a language where there's no difference between Box<u32> and u32. &Vec<u8> and &[u8] are the same thing. I don't need to write Box::new(...) around my closures to pass them to functions that take a function pointer. This comes with overhead, but in exchange we get simpler less verbose code. I.e. a language that isn't systems level, and isn't particularly machine-empathetic. But still has all the lightweight-formal-methods power of rust with lifetimes and mutable vs shared borrows (and thus references to references) and so on.
My impression of Hylo is that it's purpose is to be a similarly low level systems language to rust, just with a less complicated, and as a consequence less expressive, lightweight formal methods system for proving correctness.
I agree I don't expect rust to be displaced anytime soon. It creates a lot of time to create a good compiler, and a lot more to create the ecosystem of code, tools, and community around it.
Eh... rust's safety isn't free, but not having it and wasting time on "oh I forgot to change this call site" also isn't free. On the whole I'd say the safety assists in iteration time.
What costs rust in iteration time in my opinion is the low level (by default) nature of it. There's a faster-to-iterate language that has yet to be created which is rust but we sacrifice performance (and memory fiddling ergonomics for the odd person who does that) so we don't have to worry about things like whether a variable is stack or heap allocated. Which is in the direction of a GCed language but retains the mutable-xor-aliasable semantics.
Between rust and current GCed languages though... I guess I agree with "maybe" in both directions.
> Pre-merge, this took 5.9 billion uncached input tokens, 690 million output tokens, and 72 billion cached input token reads — around $165,000 at API pricing
> It's hard to believe that there have been no problems/downsides since the port.
Cost, the politics of the people involved, and that there would be no real need for secrecy around it (but lots of need for marketing) so we'd probably know about it. It frankly doesn't seem like it would be that useful either... the US knows how to build weapons of mass destruction.
Until Fable even the public had practically uncensored access to SOTA anthropic models (there were classifiers - but they were very hard to hit). And I'd have to double check but I'm pretty certain the public still has uncensored access to SOTA models from google (via GCP under threat of Google ceasing to do business with you and theoretically suing you if you violate the TOS).
Censorship being what they are doing here - preventing you from accessing the model for certain tasks. Censorship not being what a bunch of... motivated people... have been incorrectly suggesting is censorship: developing models to give the kinds of answers that the model developers want them to give - which has generally been a model that gives responses appropriate for a non-pornographic non-military business environment.
It strikes me as highly unlikely that Anthropic has developed another fable-class model where the only difference is that it doesn't answer questions in that way - e.g. that they have a fable model fine tuned so that when you ask it to develop biological weapons it responds similarly to asking fable to develop 3d rendering software. Of course, with uncensored access to the model it is likely possible to prompt it to develop biological weapons despite its inclination to decline.
> Embryos have their own DNA and constitute the full amount of that cell line — unlike your skin shedding.
This is absolutely not the definition of a human. It denies the humanity of genetic chimera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera) and organ transplant donors and recipients. It would define a cancer tumor (which will have it's own unique DNA lineage) as a human.
You're twisting yourself in circles trying to create some pseudoscientific definition of a human based on DNA to get to the outcome when you want, when the definition of a human is simply "matter arranged in a human form". DNA is a tiny portion of that matter, and isn't really critical at all. Theoretically you could simultaneously destroy all the DNA in a human and while they'd die in short order they'd remain human and initially pretty much entirely unchanged (hard to say for how long, maybe hours).
We'll never agree on what a human is [1], but this hamfisted attempt to define it in terms of DNA will never even create a consistent definition with the properties you want.
[1] You're plainly motivated by a spirtual or religious belief in a non-falsifiable manner that embryos share some important spiritual/religious characteristic with humans - likely something to do with a "soul". As a result you want to modify the definition of the common english word human to include them to make your beliefs seem inevitable. Meanwhile I don't share that view and will insist on continuing to use the traditional meaning of the word. I'll die on this hill because it's correct, but also because people who share your view frequently go beyond that and attempt to impose their own religious beliefs on other people in the form of laws that deny them their religious freedom, and freedom to control their own bodies. Laws incidentally that wouldn't be justified even if the embryos were full grown human being somehow squashed inside other people. And laws that have been tried, and result in not just loss of freedom but the death of actual living humans. This is the dark history in medicine that is actually worth considering in this conversation.
There is programming that is like that - it is not all programming, and I strongly suspect not the the majority by dollars invested into developers - even it is less of an interior designer choosing paints and more of an entire designer designing an entire interior.
Once you get away from the very trivial side of programming, yes you are standing on the shoulders of giants, but the design decisions are in fact truly novel un-forced choices. Ask two people to make a "note taking app for university students" and you'll get two very differently shaped apps.
Not the person you're replying to, but I'd agree with them, and think house painting would be basically identical to building a bridge.
The difference this comparison is capturing in my opinion is that of thinking up something new, compared to arranging things in a well known/already defined configuration. We know how to build bridges, we just have to do it (maybe including some calculations and site surveys, yes, but novel solutions are rightfully shunned). Similarly painting a house.
Developing software is practically definitionally creating a novel thing. If we wanted the same software over again we could literally copy and paste the existing executable (and we do that all the time, it's just not called developing software or enough work to be a job, since we have machines that are excellent at arranging the electrical charge in the pre-defined manner).
No, that skin I scraped off on the sidewalk is not a human just because it has human DNA (and indeed, the cells in it are still alive, for a time).
Similarly neither are embryos. A human is a collection of trillions of cells arranged in a particular manner, not just any cell (or relatively small set of cells) that has human DNA. Human, as a word, has meaning far beyond that.
I'd agree that personhood is the more important qualification (though, of course, we experiment on people all the time, and rightly so). But a few cells with human DNA does not a human make.
> many pages simply do not work properly with it, plus it has bugs on macos (like onmousover stuff),
I use firefox on mac and I have simply no clue what you're talking about. Tons of people use firefox on mac quite successfully...
The only page that I know of that doesn't work is google earth - it doesn't work on linux either. (Technically it does, just incredibly laggy compared to chrome)
I can't think of a single macos specific bug. Or a single mouse over related bug.
Are there? My impression is that basically the only thing that can go wrong with ultrasound is they pump too much energy into you, and as risks go that seems both difficult to screw up and easy to make sure you don't screw up.
The imaging might be useless, but then that's why it's a spa treatment. I assume the primary use cases for this are (at least until it's developed a lot more seriously) "cute" non-medical baby images and body composition - the former of which can't really go wrong and the competition for the latter is a scale with some electrodes making shit up anyways.
Nowhere did I say anything about them being Swedish citizens - though I'll note if that distinction mattered at all (it doesn't) "most" wouldn't be good enough.
I said they weren't necessarily Somali citizens. Somali citizenship when born outside the country is more complicated than that and will not be universal.
Either way legal status is just one of many reasons why this would be a horrific crime against humanity requiring prosecution by the Hague under the Rome statutes. You're still ripping an entire ethnic group away from their homes.
Well there's a clear difference between a creepy company spying on you and a creepy company closely aligned with a government that has threatened to annex you spying on you.
> I've heard the meme that AI written rust code is absurdly full and safe blocks but... that's pretty funny.
If I understand what happened here correctly this isn't really a case of any such meme, but the result of the porters (heh) telling the LLM to directly convert zig code using unsafe to match the previous code "exactly".
I.e. more like using the LLM as a fancy version of c2rust [1] (which would result in just as much unsafe) than a result of LLMs reaching for escape hatches too liberally.
Hence why the articles title - which is based on when the light cone of the event reaches us - is actually the better way to think about it. At least there's no "depends how you feel like defining the speed of light today" in it.