brokencode

Yeah, why would ARM prevent other companies from paying more for the better license?

All they care about is that companies buy an ARM license, not that they use the boilerplate ARM CPU design.

Those designs are there to make it easier for companies to make ARM-based chips who would otherwise never be able to design their own.

They design much more in house than any other smartphone brand, except maybe Samsung.

CPU, GPU, neural processor, image signal processor, U1 chip for device tracking, Secure Enclave for biometrics, a 5G modem (only used in the 16e so far)…

They don’t manufacture the chips in house of course. They contract that out to TSMC and other companies.

Arm licenses their designs to everybody. They are okay, but you are never going to make market leading processors by using the Arm designs.

Outsourced to who? The only companies with the engineers you’d need are the other CPU makers like Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, and Nvidia. And none of them make a CPU as efficient as Apple does.

Sure, but society is full of fools. Plenty of people say social media is the primary way they get news. Social media platforms are super spreaders of lies and propaganda.

I think many people just really dislike Zuckerberg as a human being and Meta as a company. Social media has seriously damaged society in many ways.

It’s not perfectionism, it’s a desire to dunk on what you don’t like whenever the opportunity arises.

The type system still allows organizing and abstracting code in standardized ways.

Static type checking is nice and is certainly my preference, but dynamic type checking doesn’t mean no types. It means the types are checked at runtime.

I'd be fascinated to hear about the author's experience using Clojure for something as complex as a compiler. Was the lack of types an issue? Or was the simplicity and flexibility of the language worth the tradeoff?

That is the most made up sounding fact I’ve heard in a long time.

Ok. But what are you even reacting to? Who is saying that it produced a working product?

As you said, the very title of the article acknowledged that it didn’t produce a working product.

This is just outrage for the sake of outrage.

We don’t know whether ChatGPT gave medical advice. Only that it suggested using sodium bromide instead of sodium chloride. For what purpose or in what context, we don’t know. It may even have recommended against using it and the man misunderstood.

What do you mean recirculation? Isn’t the money flowing mostly in one direction (to Nvidia)?

I’m not calling what you’re doing a hallucination. I’m saying that what an LLM does is in fact memory.

But it’s a memory based on what it’s trained on. Of course it doesn’t have a favorite ice cream. It’s not trained to have one. But that doesn’t mean it has no memory.

My argument is that humans have fallible memories too. Sometimes you say something wrong or that you don’t really mean. Then you might or might not notice you made a mistake.

The part LLMs don’t do great at is noticing the mistake. They have no filter and say whatever they’re thinking. They don’t run through thoughts in their head first and see if they make any sense.

Of course, that’s part of what companies are trying to fix with reasoning models. To give them the ability to think before they speak.

All you’re doing is calling the same thing hallucination when an LLM does it and memory when a human does it. You have provided no basis that the two are actually different.

Humans are better at noticing when their recollections are incorrect. But LLMs are quickly improving.

The whole point of AI is to replicate human intelligence. What else should we be comparing it to if not humans?

I genuinely believe that human brains are made of neurons and that our memories arise from how those neurons connect. I believe this is fundamentally lossy and probabilistic.

Obviously human brains are still much more sophisticated than the artificial neural networks that we can make with current technology. But I believe there’s a lot more in common than some people would like to admit.

You could say the same about humans. Have you ever misremembered something that you thought you knew?

Sure, typically we don’t invent totally made up names, but we certainly do make mistakes. Our memory can be quite hazy and unreliable as well.

Elon drew a huge target on Tesla by going so hard into politics. Truly a lot of people are still pissed off worldwide and want to see him fail.

If Tesla doesn’t like it, maybe they should fire him instead of paying him $30B.

Well yeah, but it’s a major break from the previous slate of OpenAI models. What else were they going to call it that makes any sense? o4o?

The fact that it unifies the regular model and the reasoning model is a big change. I’m sure internally it’s a big change, but also in terms of user experience.

I feel it’s worthy of a major increment, even if benchmarks aren’t significantly improved.

And if they jack up their prices, then it’s a greater incentive for other players to build their own capacity.

This really isn’t that hard of a concept. There is no barrier other than access to capital. Nvidia and Dell will sell to anybody.

The major players will always be competing not only with each other, but also the possibility that customers will invest in their own hardware.

I don’t think these companies have a lot of power to increase prices due to the very strong competition. I think it’s more likely that they will become profitable by significantly cutting costs and capital expenditures in the long run.

Models are becoming more efficient. Lots of capacity is coming online, and will eventually meet the global needs. Hardware is getting better and with more competition, probably will become cheaper.

Fortunately for TSMC, Intel really isn’t worth that much anymore. $50B doesn’t seem so bad, and maybe it could lead to a deep partnership and sharing of tech and factories.

It’s not proof that blocking the merger was good, but it does undermine many of the arguments against blocking it.

I’m all for the government getting out of the way of business, but we’ve seen a large amount of consolidation in many software categories.

Adobe’s market share is pretty extreme already in the creative software space, and I think it is reasonable for the government to step in to try to prevent further consolidation.

I agree with you that it’s really unknowable whether blocking or not blocking was a better choice. But if we only made decisions based on knowing the outcome, we’d never do anything.

You do not understand how IPOs work. They only sold a small number of shares (about $1.2B) in the IPO. That’s why it’s called an “initial offering” of shares.

Investors can feel free to hold onto their remaining shares and sell whenever they want, outside of a window following the IPO where they can’t.

We can’t know what would have happened exactly, but can be certain there would have been less competition if Adobe had acquired Figma.

We can’t know for sure whether increased competition is going to lead to a better outcome here, but we can say with a high level of certainty that more competition usually leads to better outcomes.

The fact that this also turned out to be fantastic for investors is just icing on the cake. Increased competition in markets is a worthy goal in itself.

I just have to wonder.. why after decades can Microsoft not get this right? I’d love to hear insider stories about what’s going on here.

Are you suggesting that the problem with housing is that we are producing too much of it?

Boring is where the money is. Always has been.

Westworld robots are still a long way off, but think about how far we’ve come so quickly.

It’s pretty incredible that natural language computing is now seen as boring when it barely even existed 5 years ago.

Maybe it’s a fourth as fast in ideal situations with a fast LAN connection. Who knows what they meant by this.

It could still be faster in real world situations where the client is a mobile device with a high latency, lossy connection.