achrono

That's fallacious. It's a problem of popular use (and sales incentives), not of definition.

"Open-source" represents a cluster of concepts but at the core of it there is a specific definition in spirit at least -- you can see the source for yourself, and compile it for yourself.

If the source is not available, why would you want to call it open-source? Just call it something else. As simple as that.

Sure, but I think you get my point.

>All one will be able to say is that somewhere out there in the computational universe there’s some (typically computationally irreducible) process that “happens” to be aligned with what we want.

>There’s no overarching theory to it in itself; it’s just a reflection of the resources that were out there. Or, in the case of machine learning, one can expect that what one sees will be to a large extent a reflection of the raw characteristics of computational irreducibility

Strikes me as a very reductive and defeatist take that flies in the face of the grand agenda Wolfram sets forth.

It would have been much more productive to chisel away at it to figure out something rather than expecting the Theory to be unveiled in full at once.

For instance, what I learn from the kinds of playing around that Wolfram does in the article is: neural nets are but one way to achieve learning & intellectual performance, and even within that there are a myriad different ways to do it, but most importantly: there is a breadth vs depth trade-off, in that neural nets being very broad/versatile are not quite the best at going deep/specialised; you need a different solution for that (e.g. even good old instruction set architecture might be the right thing in many cases). This is essentially why ChatGPT ended up needing Python tooling to reliably calculate 2+2.

The opposite.

> not actually sure if Meta does share all that

Meta shares the code for inference but not for training, so even if we say it can be open-source without the training data, Meta's models are not open-source.

I can appreciate Zuck's enthusiasm for open-source but not his willingness to mislead the larger public about how open they actually are.

What a massive irony and a cruel joke. The headline should really be "Google Drive scans your files for copyright infringement", because this is copyright for me not for thee, at its absolute finest.

I'm not even talking about Gemini's training data.

Recall that it was Google that utterly nonchalantly scanned & stored some 40 million books, without seeking and obtaining permission from a single one of their authors. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....]

Is the internet as we knew it drawing to a close?

>Perhaps openai.com has been added to a blocklist on HN?

Really now? That's your primary suspicion here?

For comparison, one of Mistral's new models (mathstral) didn't make much of a splash either, despite being genuinely innovative rather than just a more optimized version of an existing model.

Posing it back to you -- why do you think the 4o-mini was worth the front page, considering that a lot of the target audience for it would probably be just waiting for llama3-405b, or worse, is a bit jaded now?

Interesting that The Guardian is leading the way in finally having non-gendered headlines, i.e. not saying "Female physicist recognized 75 years after discovery" or "Rosemary Fowler, 98-year old physicist, recognized 75 years after discovery".

This will hopefully pave the way for truer equality in that the most common reaction reading this headline would probably be "oh no, why has this physicist not gotten the recognition" rather than the latter, which is more polarising -- it leads to either "outrageous, look here is one more neglected woman!" or "here we go, one more feminist complaint".

Sure, but is causing a little damage to a tiny part of the body acceptable? Exposure levels and durations -- common sense would suggest those are going up with people using more devices for more time every day.

I was not inclined to believe this whole radiation business for such reasons too -- "it's one study", "if it were so bad this would make front-page of the NYT", "entire labs of scientists and governments cannot be lying about this", "it's non-ionizing radiation, that's why it's safe you idiot!" etc.

What made me look a little deeper was Huberman's AMA on EMF. It's become fashionable to dunk on him now but it gave me a pause in that I began to wonder if there might be some merit to this after all.

Ultimately, this is like assessing the evidence for any other controversial topic -- unless you're working in R&D on radiation yourself, individual retail consumers of research like us can rely on the published evidence only to a certain extent. Beyond that, it's your priors, risk thresholds and heuristics for who to trust that will determine what you believe.

Distance decreases the intensity of exposure. I'm not trying to achieve complete avoidance, just a decrease of risk.

To those who down-voted (actually or even as a psychological reaction) my original comment: consider for a moment that while this might be a fringe opinion, it is not without some evidence.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...

If you think rats getting cancer from radiation is not relevant evidence, that's your personal opinion, not the most scientifically validated hypothesis.

Yes, but this way of ensconcing it reduces the radiation exposure since the device now likely won't be kept constantly in contact with the body.

> it's of course very silly

Beg to differ -- this is quite valuable as a new kind of paging device that you want to keep around instead of your higher end iPhone's battery constantly draining, and more importantly, for people who'd like to keep radiation at a distance.

(Yeah, no, I'm not saying you should keep away from radiation, just that some people do prefer to and it's therefore a market segment.)

The author's point is very different -- it is that happiness can really only be pursued, as opposed to it being possible to obtain and retain happiness in an ever-lasting way -- but that it should be pursued nevertheless.

"huge part of philosophical and religious thought" is sweeping in the extreme.

Take for instance what a Christian would tell you about happiness -- they would hardly be saying the same thing as I mentioned above. Take a Buddhist or a Hindu -- they would probably agree with the first half of the proposition above (happiness cannot be procured permanently) but the entire thrust of those traditions has been (basically) to recognize this fact and give it all up and retire to the caves.

pdf24 does not appear to be open-source, just free (as in beer). Were you thinking of PDFtk?

Neat work and more power to you to build further.

This reminded me of Joplin. What's the direction you're looking to take this in?

> We have opensourced the models in Hugging Face and ModelScope to you

We are unfortunately now in a place where this falsehood has travelled the world while the truth is probably still half-asleep in its underwear.

It is a shame that people who are working on what is probably the pinnacle of computing can so blatantly disregard the real meaning.

Imagine if Microsoft starting announcing everywhere that Windows, because all its EXE and DLLs are right there for you to see, is actually open-source!

I suppose all we can do now is to keep asking "is it open-source or like true open-source?".

If Snowden and Assange have taught us one thing, it is that state-sponsored surveillance is not a topic you want to have a very high evidence threshold for. The available evidence is always going to lag the actuality and even what we previously thought of as exaggerations/outliers in terms of suspicions of surveillance (e.g. "NSA knows I hate broccoli") have turned out to be not so unwarranted after all.

It has become a hallmark of Western civilization to first of all Cover Your Ass, and where it gets exposed, to Pretend It's Covered, but when its photos get published, to Sincerely Apologize, and when pressed even more, to come out afresh with a Bold Pro-Coverage Vision and Commitment.

But maybe there's a further step that someone like OpenAI seems uniquely capable of evolving.

This is rightfully the top comment on this page (at least as of this writing).

These people need to be called out relentlessly until they stop misleading the public.

So much for the Altmanian infinite progress of humanity. They can't set aside their ego, their money and their power, so let's put them back in the Evil Corporate Billionaire category that such people belong to.

I agree, 'but' is the wrong conjunction here and 'still' the wrong adverb.

It should've said:

Amazon made record breaking profit because (among other things) they laid off more than 18000 employees (2023)

Even if so, that metaphor was not executed faithfully, and for a company like Apple that is bad.

But more so there is an unmistakeable 'destruction is cute' aspect to the ad that is uncalled for, that is what the reaction is toward.

Next: due to an issue with primary key mapping, all cities in the US are now required to have a unique name, so all affected cities must work together to come up with new names. Start with the Springfields.

Maintenance needs to become sexy (again?). Assuming you don't have near-infinite money, the misery averted by maintaining your car well is greater than the joy obtained by buying a new one, because you can really do both at the same time by spending only ~25% more and end up with 2 cars instead.

LLM mediocrity is just a reflection of human mediocrity, and my bet is on the average LLM to get way better much faster than the average human doing the same.

Would be really neat to extend this to have Doom on an LLM. Much of AI has been enabled by gaming, and this could be the crowning synergy.

Until they shut down Play Books while educating us that customers actually prefer summaries via Gemini instead of using Play Books, so actually now book purchases are being migrated to Gemini because that is such a better customer experience. It can even contextually recommend further reading... why would you not want that?

This is useful to know, but why not just virtualize via UTM esp. if it's only for "daily driving"?

Exactly, but neither the source nor the binary is what's truly important here. The real question is: can the LLM generate the functionally valid source equivalent of the binary at hand? If I disassemble Microsoft Paint, can I get code that will result in a mostly functional version of Microsoft Paint, or will I just get 515 compile errors instead?

Well, is != ought. So the recognition of gender essences a la Simon Baron-Cohen is not incompatible with striving to minimize those changes. We may stumble along the way, and it may prove to be a fool's errand, but in principle this is not impossible to achieve.

(Why) do you consider Bitcoin to not be a waste of energy, independent of TikTok or Reddit? What problems has it solved in the last decade that would make it sensible to shut down Reddit before you shut down Bitcoin?

(I'm not even climbing up the tree of Bitcoin's energy consumption being many multiples greater than Reddit's.)