chx

If my business depended on it? I can click a few buttons and have a 8TiB Supermicro server on my doorstep in a few days if I wanted to colo that. EC2 High Memory instances offer 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 TiB of memory in an instance if that's the kind of service you want. Azure Mv2 also does 2850 - 11400GiB.

So yes, if need to be, I have 6 TiB of RAM.

> How to enhance generative AI's problem-solving capabilities,

A zero multiplied by whatever is still zero.

It can not solve anything with one broad category of exceptions as https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650 brilliantly explains:

> You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to.

> Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.

> Decisions and orders of the Governor in Council, and decisions of the Minister, under this Part are final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, are not subject to appeal or to review by any court.

long covid

> -x is 2^n - 2^b * k

Erm no. -x is - 2^b * k and it's the "Two's complement" notation which is 2^n - 2 * b * k

This is because the way we generate the "Two's complement" number. Given A in binary representation, let's call A1 the number you get by flipping every bit in A also called one's complement. Observe how every bit in A+A1 is 1 because if the bit was 0 in A then the bit is 1 in A1 and vica versa. So then that's 2^N-1. Two's complement is created by adding 1 to A1 so then A + A1 is 2^N or A1 = 2^N-A. But you do need to prove this before you can use it.

I would like to know what gives the federal government power to do this -- and whether a court of law got involved.

When Stephen Harper tried to revoke citizenship without judicial oversight we have sacked him. I am not quite sure how I feel about this if a court was not involved but I can't find the source. I at least would feel rather uneasy if the gov could just say "this company shouldn't exist".

Edit: ah. Found it. https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-develop...

> In accordance with the Investment Canada Act, foreign investments are subject to review for national security concerns.

I guess that's ... okay. I would still have much more liked a court in the middle but I guess since this is specifically a foreign investment this is ok. The very act https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-21.8/FullText.htm... begins with:

> Recognizing that increased capital and technology benefits Canada, and recognizing the importance of protecting national security, the purposes of this Act are to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in a manner that encourages investment, economic growth and employment opportunities in Canada and to provide for the review of investments in Canada by non-Canadians that could be injurious to national security.

It's 2024. Some of us are isolating because y'all refuse to mask up and we can't risk going anywhere.

I have powered through by wearing a Cleanspace Halo but that precludes a real lot of places I used to go: cafes, cinemas, theatres...

Ah, my friend

it's not a bug

It's a fundamental feature

These LLMs can produce nothing else but since the bullshit they spew resembles an answer and sometimes accidentally collide with one, people tend to think it can give answers. But no.

https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650

> You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to.

> Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.

Google had the best search engine there is.

Then they enshittified it for short term profit and now they panic instead of reverting course and simply laugh at AI companies.

Madness.

Yeah. Still there is a human mind and effort between the original and the copy or we wouldn't care that much. That's the fundamental difference.

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40475364

Human art can exist without anything prior. For example, I highly doubt the creators of cave paintings traveled the world to see other such work before doing theirs. But you could look at impressionism or pointillism for that matter.

AI can not.

Indeed, the problem is the utter unoriginality of the current wave of AI. Literally the only thing it can do is to produce the next token which is the most likely to be in the training set.

I do not trust the corrupt courts of the United States to decide on anything. Or, more charitably even if the blatant exploitation of artists can't be proven to breach any existing statute -- and the law is always behind -- even then I will shorten this obvious truism as "all AI art is stolen art".

what is your affiliation with Dataherald

Completely agreed. Instantly closed the tab without looking at the article when I saw the distinctly AI rendered image.

Enough of this weasel talk.

It's not the early days.

Not by a country mile.

To quote Cory Doctorow

> I don’t see any path from continuous improvements to the (admittedly impressive) ”machine learning” field that leads to a general AI any more than I can see a path from continuous improvements in horse-breeding that leads to an internal combustion engine.

You can counter it doesn't necessarily need an AGI here but that doesn't change the fact you can't crank this engine harder and expect it to power an airplane.

And, as always https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650

> You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to.

> Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.

The start state is A.

If you believe a known conman like Sam Altman didn't intend to steal SJ's voice I have a bridge to sell you.

See my comment from yesterday re him being a known conman: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40435120

Then why did they ask her two days prior launch? A potential jury would be very, very curious knowing that.

This is somewhat outdated. Friday the judge ruled the suit can not continue anonymously. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.32...

> The Court does not intend for this determination to suggest that all information in this case will or should necessarily be made public. Indeed, there are other ways to protect specific information in litigation. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for protective orders for “protect[ing] a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” upon a showing of “good cause”). The fact that these other means exist and are—in the Court’s view—better suited to address Plaintiff’s instant concerns also indicates that Plaintiff proceeding anonymously is not required to achieve the protection he seeks. Thus, the Court makes clear that while it will not allow Plaintiff to proceed anonymously

And then indeed he refilled and so his name is now known https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24676044-16

Reading the lawsuit it seems another student, who apparently coded the thing connected Canvas to Eightball and that's what this whole thing is about. The lawsuit alleges Plaintiff had no idea this happened.

> He sounds sneaky, evasive and intentionally deceptive.

Well, here's Yishan Wong describing how Altman and the Reddit founders have conned Conde Nast: https://reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_bes... he answers at https://reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_bes...

Cool story bro.

Except I could never have predicted the part where you resigned on the spot :)

Other than that, child's play for me.

Thanks for the help. I mean, thanks for your service as CEO.

I do not recall any such truth.

It's a truism the Internet doesn't forget.

But copyright is copyright and copying some work just because it's published on the Internet is illegal, it always was and still is.

The actual, real, not hype benefit you get from these once the hype quiets down is so little compared to the harm it does to everything.

> As mentioned earlier, no one knows how to implement regular expressions with backreferences efficiently, though no one can prove that it's impossible either. (Specifically, the problem is NP-complete, meaning that if someone did find an efficient implementation, that would be major news to computer scientists and would win a million dollar prize.)

It really needs to be noted how NP-complete and an algorithm efficient in practice have nothing to do with each other. If an algorithm takes C * 1.000...eighty zeroes...1^n time it is exponential but for any n you will encounter in real life the time it takes will be indistinguishable from C.

> After I've consented

Well LLMs have already stolen everything you ever wrote or posted online.

We told y'all to advocate for a very strict regulation of these things.

But no.

Instead: It's amazing. It's world changing.

Yes. It's going to change the world. For much worse. If you thought Citizens United damaged democracy just wait. Elections will be won by those with the most compute aka the most money everywhere.

People will die of this bullshit. I can't foretell how but they will. I mean, I haven't foreseen AI generated mushroom books but I am absolute certain this technology is deadly. Just wait.

Everything AI generated should come with an unskippable, extremely obvious huge warning of being AI generated and free of facts. If the AI companies won't add these then we should force them by regulation. But no. Hype instead.

> OpenAI is amazing technology,

Erm... no. https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/112006855076082650

> You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to.

> Alas, that does not remotely resemble how people are pitching this technology.

Altman is a known conman. Surely you are aware of Yishan Wong describing how Sam Altman and the Reddit founders conned Conde Nast https://reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_bes...

> We focused on LLMs that can reason while still remembering key facts exactly.

It can NOT reason and exact facts are simply not a property of LLMs.

Until the day it submits something to standup you don't want to and don't tell me you will always carefully filter it and then in best case you get fired. Worst case, you get criminally prosecuted.

Jesus, you people never learn.

How does this compare to the Seikan tunnel constructed 40 years ago?

https://web.archive.org/web/20161018110338/http://jr.hakodat...

> Minimum overburden (under seabed): 100m

> Maximum sea depth: 140m

Excuse me for being daft, is the difference going to be a showstopper ? Construction and material engineering surely advanced since quite a bit.

Why not a tunnel?