ckjellqv

I wouldn't think that since people who don't suffer from these issues outnumber those who do suffer, that makes this not a real issue. Consider the victims of opiate addiction, alcoholism, or sex trafficking. Are those situations so fundamentally different? How many people does one have to know with tragic childhoods for it to be a problem that people take seriously?

> This is arguably much worse

Surely someone claiming it's arguable should be willing to make that argument.

For me it's not that it's reproduction. Film that shows sex is not an issue as I see it and I don't know anyone that has developed serious addictions to sex in Hollywood film. However I know several people, family members included, that have absolutely obliterated their childhoods and early adult years by becoming addicted to porn. They were groomed by adults online from a young age and, although their parents tried to stop it, kids are sneakier and they got around it, exposing themselves to some truly dark things. It is not easy for families to recover from having dealt with a child with serious addiction issues.

I think it's pretty silly to argue that systemic protections are ineffective and overreach whereas the efforts of one or two parents should be enough and are the correct level of enforcement for the protection of children. The parents of the people I know went to extremes to protect their children and they were mostly unsuccessful.

My guess is that autoregressive models can use Key Value (KV) caching to eliminate most of the FLOPs inside the self-attention block. Can't use KV caching inside diffusion (because it's not a causal model) but they sell this as a win anyway because they believe it leads to better reasoning.

for the people that want roadtrips and incredibly large range. Sadly it seems like many of the cars in the article are plopping ICE generators on top of EVs with already 300mi of range.

But even so, these extra tanks and ICE engines contribute to the cost and weight of the vehicle when the objective for me is to minimize cost given that I don't drive more than 100mi/wk. I could do with with 100mi of total range or less without need for an ICE generator.

I've thought for a long time that offering only electric vehicles with 200+ mile range as the base availability is overkill. I drive a short commute to work and then maybe 2mi to the grocery store and I have no other needs. Otherwise I take plane/train.

The common arguments I hear are 1. What if I need to take a roadtrip? 2. What if I don't have accessibility to a charger at home or work and need longer range to account for that.

Only (2) seems reasonable to me, but many do have access where they live. Seeing as the huge expense of EVs is batteries, I'd love the option of something with a much, much reduced battery (and the additional reduced feature sets the article mentions).

So your answer to the question is "because they can?" I don't think we needed the LLM age for us to be able to say that. That is to say, I think the article is giving the birds a bit more agency than next-token prediction engines.

It should be well-defined with reinterpret_cast<uint32_t&> though.

How does this compare to commercial tools? I read through the original Titan-2 paper and they were 5X faster in routing but achieved worse QoR compared to Quartus - does this close the gap?

I'm also wondering how congested these input designs are - I don't know much about the benchmarks used. Extremely congested designs can take a much, much longer time to route so an improvement there either in runtime or QoR could be useful.