echoangle

Ah so a defense contractor won’t be allowed to use Claude to create their website because they might later want to do some target selection for military strikes using AI and then they wouldn’t be able to use Claude?

And why would the manager ban the manufacturers pens even for writing, except out of spite to punish the manufacturer? And coming back to the real case, is the supply chain risk designation supposed to be a punishment or only there to actually protect the supply chain?

Ruby?

Your claimed GPU usage seems really high for a simple spinner, even considering the CPU is pretty old. I wonder if there's some other problem going on with your setup.

Again you’re missing the combined argument, the cooling will increase launch costs because your hunk of metal will increase the weight of the satellite.

Saying it’s impossible isn’t debatable because it obviously is. What would stop you from a physics standpoint to just launch 100 ISS with Server racks in each? A few kW of installed power in space is already reality, it’s just really expensive.

> We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages.

Why would they as long as they find a renter? The market always charges the marginal cost.

As long as the company has a HQ and owners that care about their quality of life, they don’t really gain any extra safety by moving their hardware to space compared to keeping it where they are based.

The distance from earth to the sun is 150 million kilometers and your orbit is probably only a few hundred kilometers up (and realistically it’s sun-synchronous and perpendicular to the earth-sun axis), so the distance change doesn’t really matter.

The argument is that launching and operating those satellites is more expensive than just using the same silicon on the ground.

I think you misunderstand the argument of the people worrying about cooling. I don’t think most people think it’s literally physically impossible, they just think that this will be the thing that makes it economically uncompetitive. It’s a combined argument.

You can use heatpumps to increase radiator temperature but then you need a heatpump and need to power it. But the principle is sound.

> For all we know matrix multiplications are a faster way to generate

“are” or “could be”?

Maybe Claude is RLHFd primarily on texts by mpoteat and that’s why it talks this way

Just show everyone who looks up the code how often the code has already been checked. If you get a new product but the code has been checked 628 times, it’s probably a reused code.

> And still you're reaction is "it's slop".

The text on the page sounds really AI written so I can see why people think it’s slop.

I think they would be allowed to do it because it’s for safety (they could probably also open letters filled with powder to prevent anthrax etc.), but I don’t think they have the manpower and motivation to do it, especially because the risk is probably really low, even without shipping mode.

So they will scan the package, notice the phone, unpack and start it to check the battery percentage and if the shipping mode is enabled?

Wiki on wifi:

> It is disputed whether the name Wi-Fi is short-form for 'Wireless Fidelity',[34] although the Wi-Fi Alliance did use the advertising slogan "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" for a short time after the brand name was created,[31][35] referenced "the Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) logo" in a white paper[33] and the Wi-Fi Alliance was also called the "Wireless Fidelity Alliance Inc." in some publications.[36] IEEE, a separate but related organization, has stated "WiFi is a short name for Wireless Fidelity" on their website.[37][38] The name Wi-Fi was partly chosen because it sounds similar to Hi-Fi, which consumers take to mean high fidelity or high quality. Interbrand hoped consumers would find the name catchy, and that they would assume this wireless protocol has high fidelity because of its name.[39]

So it’s not really safe to say it’s not meant to mean wireless fidelity, in fact it sounds pretty likely.

You could say this about every QoL feature though. That’s not a reason to not do it though, it adds up and at some point other apps that do bother to make their apps as good as possible will become more popular than yours.

Not necessarily, you could also want to make an infinite loop and wait for an interrupt without eanting to power down.

Or you could just detect while loops with constant condition (like the C standard) and not touch any programs that don't exhibit UB while allowing infinite loops for other use cases at zero runtime cost and negligible compile cost.

> The CPU doesn't really see functions, it just sees instructions. Functions are a convention on top of the machine code.

Not really true, most instructions set have instructions specifically to implement functions as found in normal programming languages. x86 has CALL and RET for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions

Of course the compiler can stil optimize by inlining etc., but functions still mostly exist at the assembly level.

What if my CPU doesn't have that? I don't think Atmel Microcontrollers do for example.

Why not just allow infinite loops instead of having me write assembly for it though?

That's the problem with UB, once you hit it (or even have it in your code), you can't really trust anything about the execution anymore. That the function is called isn't something the compiler does on purpose, it's just that the main function is compiled empty due to the UB and the function directly behind it is executed because the CPU just keeps looking for the next instruction.

And how would you generate assembly to keep a microcontroller idle then?

I'm also confused that an uncalled function is even compiled and linked, wouldn't it make sense to remove it entirely if the compiler can detect that it's never called?

The article mentions a use case for that:

> What I found is that this is common in embedded and kernel code as a halt-on-error pattern. When a fatal error occurs and there’s no operating system to exit to, you simply stop:

> Except in your own examples it can easily be shown that it is not handled differently.

I was talking about humans vs. cars as an analogy to you comparing GPUs and cars.

Nobody is taxing humans the way cars are taxed, so why should the computing speed of a GPU be compared to that of a human?

> A bridge can hold ten thousand humans or thousand trucks. You can argue that a "human" may not weigh 100 kgs or a truck may not weigh exactly 1 ton. That's fine. It is a rough approximate to equalize unequal entities.

And you do not think that comparing weights to measure bridge load makes a lot more sense than comparing FLOPS to determine learning of GPUs vs humans?

EDIT: Maybe let's just go back to the original point

> We need to define machine in terms of "human-power"... much the same as how we already define automobiles via "horse-power". A single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 chip, for example, delivers roughly 35.58 teraflops of standard computing power (via 10,496 CUDA cores). That means 35.58 trillion calculations every second. In comparison, a mathematically trained human being, taking their time to solve a complex, multi-digit decimal division problem by hand takes roughly 100 to 120 seconds. That gives the human 0.01 flops. To match RTX 3090, you would need 3.56 quadrillion people working/learning in perfect sync. We can use a calculation similar to this to derive metrics on how much is being stolen for "learning/training" these models. The loot can be quantified.

So you want to compare the learning rate of a GPU to that of a human by comparing their respective FLOPS. Why would FLOPS be a valid proxy for learning ability in humans just because that works out in GPUs, if the way they learn is fundamentally different?

Is the effect of someone reading a copyrighted book dependent on how fast they are at doing math in their head?