[1]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/Countri...
287 karma · joined April 28, 2020
[1]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/Countri...
The problem as I see it is not robots coming for my job and taking away my ability to earn a salary. That can be solved by societal structures like you are saying, even though I am somewhat pessimistic of our ability to do so in our current political climate.
The problem I see is robots coming for my mind and taking away any stakes and my ability to do anything that matters. If the robot is an expert in all fields why would you bother to learn anything? The fact that it takes time and energy to learn new skills and knowledge is what makes the world interesting. And this is exactly what happened before when machines took over a lot of human labour, luckily there were still plenty of things they couldn't do and thus ways to keep the world interesting. But if the machines start to think for us, what then is left for us to do?
Why whould anyone think that these companies will contribute to the good of humanity when they are even bigger and more powerful, when they seem to care so little now?
Without any of this I can't even know for sure if there was any human intervention. I don't really think so, but as I mentioned the financial pressure to perform well is extreme so I can totally see that happening. Maybe ICPC did have some oversight, but please write a bit about it then.
If you assume no human intervention then all of this is of course irrelevant if you only care about the capabilities that exist. But still the implications of a general model performing at this level vs something more like a chess model trained specifically on competitive programming are of course different, even if the gap may close in the future. And how much compute/power was used, are we talking hundreds of kWhs? And does that just means larger models than normally or intelligent bruteforcing through a huge solutionspace? If so, then it is not clear how much they will be able to scale down the compute usage while keeping the performance at the same level
I think this is huge news, and I cannot imagine anything other than models with this capability having a massive impact all over the world. It causes me to be more worried than excited, it is very hard to tell what this will lead which is probably what makes it scary for me.
However with so little transparency from these companies and extreme financial pressure to perform well in these contests, I have to be quite sceptical of how truthful these results are. If true I think it is really remarkable, but I really want some more solid proof before I change my worldview.
[1] https://www.buypass.com/products/tls-ssl-certificates/read-m...
I have also been thinking about how basing morality on following laws is a bad idea. You should not be afraid of breaking laws or rules if they are stupid. All of modern workers rights, women's rights, etc are based on brave people of the past that were not afraid of breaking stupid laws of their time, why should today be any different.
On the other hand I am wondering about what is the state of the art in CPU + GPU inference. Prompt processing is both compute and memory constrained, but I think token generation afterwards is mostly memory bound. Are there any tools that support loading a few layers at a time into a GPU for initial prompt processing and then switches to CPU inference for token generation? Last time I experimented it was possible to run some layers on the GPU and some on the CPU, but to me it seems more efficient to run everything on the GPU initially (but a few layers at a time so they fit in VRAM) and then switch to the CPU when doing the memory bound token generation.
I think often fiction-type shows like Vikingane has complicated licensing as it is normally produced by some sort of third-party, but other programs like news and the mintioned gameshow is produced in-house and NRK has all the rights. There is a very nice page with an archive of old programs [2], I think most of this should be globally available.
I of course agree in general that geo-restrictions and localized distribution rights are stupid concepts.
[1]: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/nytt-paa-nytt-quiz [2]: https://tv.nrk.no/programmer/nrk-arkivet
Nix should also have enough context so that for any project it can get the source code of all dependencies and (optionally) all build-time dependencies.
The only explanation I could think of was a faulty ground connection. The scope was grounded through the wall socket same as the CNC and thus had the same ground potential. My laptop on the other hand was running on battery and only shared ground with the CNC through RS232 pin 5 (signal ground). However it seems this pin was not correctly connected on the CNC side and thus I was unable to transmit any data. Experimenting a bit I tried to connect ground to the connector shield instead and everything worked perfectly.
[1]: https://git.sr.ht/~erock/prose.sh/tree/main/item/cmd/ssh/mai... [2]: https://github.com/charmbracelet/wish
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/o6h1bc/comment/...
Professional equipment is usually in another league than consumer stuff when it comes to quality and reliability and also usually has very low resale value so you can get it for quite cheap. Personally I just picked up an old Sharp color laser printer for about 90$. This is a great machine that prints 2 sided A3 (very hard to find for laser printers) and with toners that should last about 10000 pages which is way better than anything you can buy as a consumer. The only backside is that it is quite big and heavy.
Old consumer equipment that is in good shape is often a good deal with the main reasoning being that something that has lasted for a long time has a higher probability of continuing to last a long time compared to something new where it is hard to say how long it will last.
From Wikipedia [1]: "As a protection symbol, they are used in armed conflicts to mark persons and objects (buildings, vehicles, etc.) which are working in compliance with the rules of the Geneva Conventions."
This means that in contrast to what many commenter here are saying non-Red Cross medics (including military ones) can and do use the red cross symbol to signal that they are such.
This of course does not really change much in regards to the usage issue, you are still not allowed to use the symbol for other purposes than specified in the Geneva convention.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...