bee_rider

I think they agree with you about what “imposter syndrome” means, but think the shift from “imposter phenomenon” to “imposter syndrome” turned it from something that would be understood as imposed, to something that would be understood as personal. I have no idea about the history of the term, or whether their description is true or not. Just, I’m pretty sure that is what they are saying.

Electron was an ok solution to the problem they were looking at, “how do I waste as much compute as possible.” Unfortunately it had the side effect of drawing a bunch of stuff on the screen.

Luckily in the modern era we have invented language models, which allow us to expend vast resources on text generation instead.

In October/September my LinkedIn wall was probably… 55% people complaining that they were getting garbage AI submissions to the conferences they review for, and 35% people complaining that they got garbage AI reviews back from their conference submission… Of course, I have no idea if that means anything given how aggressively that site bubbles your feed.

I don’t get the idea of saying one thing while the audience reads something else. It seems like a sure recipe for confusion.

I usually put almost no prose-type text on my presentations. Figures, captions for figures, equations, variable definitions, small code snippets, those are ok.

The only time I’d put prose on there is if it is a “main idea,” then I’ll do the thing where I read it word-for-word from the slide. But that’s got to be used sparingly enough that it sticks out as a weird moment that the audience is supposed to remember.

It is funny to go back and play some classics like that.

IIRC Quake used “a” and “d” to… turn, instead of strafe, by default. Absolute madness. Can be played without a mouse I think(?).

On the other hand, it is still very cool that you can get the bad guys to fight each other sometimes. That should be a feature in every game really.

I’m sure we can trust the folks whose whole business model is “we’re real good at convincing people to spend their money” when they say their product is a super effective tool that every business owner should spend money on. Right?

I don’t think that is right. Defense and offense are basically different games. Currently my desktop is 100% safe (it is powered off).

That’s a dumb edge case, but it makes the point, you can always be more secure by cutting features. Maybe intelligence moves up the amount of complexity you can securely handle? But it is never much.

IDK about the politician, but I bet 80% of the Lindsey’s out there are named after the Fleetwood Mac guitarist, so obviously that name transcend any petty gender limitations.

It seems more like an economic annoyance campaign or something?

If I were a country with this kind of attack sitting around and I wanted to use it for war stuff, I’d probably wait until a hot war had started. Destroy the freezers when everyone is busy making weapons or manning trenches, might actually cause a food situation.

Organizing a national boycott would be a reasonable comparison to running for office.

In a capitalist system, most people primarily influence the expenditure of their dollars. In a democratic system, most people have their vote. In general the average person exerts an average-person-sized influence over the world.

I’m actually not sure where the gap is, in the US, on foundries. It might be more like people with a bachelors and some experience.

We could also maybe use more semiconductor physics PhDs?

In the future, will a 2 year old model be useless? In 2 years? 10 years?

This is kind of an interesting thought (underneath the grumpiness, which I guess is where the downvotes came from). Programmers seem to hold aviation processes in very high regard, but their industry is also under cost pressures. The “UX” of riding in a plane does kind of suck, I wonder if some of that comes from the costs involved.

Not too surprised to see pressure to reduce the number of pilots.

I do wonder with polls like this, that include middle-of-the road options like “fairly important,” if there could also be some change in how we communicate our preferences. Maybe we’ve got a general creeping uncertainty about everything.

I think the “it’ll come crashing down” argument comes from cheaper inference, not more expensive. The frontier labs have to pay for these massive training runs. If inference gets cheap enough that you can run it yourself, why run it on their side? Open weights are (much) less than a year behind.

Means-tested disaster recovery assistance could be worth considering I guess.

Maybe that was a reasonable thing to do, no need to re-litigate the past. But, we collectively made a prioritization decision. We don’t get to just ignore the downsides of that decision.

Lots of areas have natural hazards. Should we help out people hit by tornadoes or floods?

With climate change induced problems, at least there’s some justification. We collectively (as a country… you and I personally might not have been alive or voting when the mistake was made) failed to elect governments that would prevent it, so we we collectively get to pay for it.

I think they describe the CPU using the weights? I mean in some sense a CPU can be viewed as just a function, right?

Graphs theory, like in general? Just as one example, an awful lot of numerical linear algebra research is devoted to the handling of sparse matrices (ones where most of the entries are zeroes), which can also be looked at as graphs. Likely any CAD program with a finite element analysis tool uses some graph theory under the hood.

It might not be tested. But, it would seem very weird if anyone other than the person using the LLM was accountable for the output.

None of these analogies work very well because providing services across the border without crossing it doesn’t scale very well in-person. I should have just said that directly, but the image of cross-border bagel service was too funny to pass up.

WRT your second paragraph, I think I addressed it already in my second paragraph.

If someone put a bagel shop on the Swiss/French border and sold bagels across it (using, I don’t know, a long pole or something) I guess there would be some questions.

Realistically, Switzerland and France have a relationship; treaties, etc. Quad9 has to comply with Swiss law, and they probably hope that making reasonable good-faith moves to block French users will cause Swiss courts (if it comes down to that) to see them as the more sympathetic party.

I don’t see how you can claim there’s a dichotomy when the “second thing” is something you’ve conjured up from your own assumptions.

The lighthouse thing seems much more odd. That humans take social shortcuts and justify them as rational is… I mean, the only thing that makes it not the most obvious “contrarian take” about humans, is that it isn’t really all that contrarian at all.

Static HTML, yeah.

Not sure about VPN. Seems likely to provide a false sense of security.

I think 91 is a strong contender. Sejje has a way of working it out, but of course any small non-prime will have some trick to it.

I wonder if anyone wants to over-analyze this joke to come up with the best candidates for the number? 57 falls too easily to the quick divisibility by 3 trick, IMO. (I realize over-analyzing jokes always makes them unfunny but we can pick the best number here and nobody has to know).

That could be kind of interesting.

It does seem to lean on the physical bank-front being trustworthy (no evil clerks).

If we’re meeting physically to set up connections, we could even use something like a one-time-pad, and be information-theoretically secure. How many bits does your bank really need to send you securely anyway?

So, the real input to your autovectorizer is LLVM IR; you could soon enough support any language that has an LLVM front-end? (I say soon enough instead of immediately because I’m sure there’s some manual wiring up to do). That seems like a pretty big deal. Do Fortran next, pls. :)