13,452 karma · joined May 31, 2012
Email me at josh (at) jgirvin (dot) com
https://jgirvin.com for my blog
@girvo on Twitter/Threads
But I find the idea that talking is faster than typing utterly wild, I can type faster than I can think!
Maybe there’s a better way
The pros have RCEs, but won’t burn it for something this small.
It’s a real vulnerability, but a complex one
Yes, they really have been. It’s exhausting at work.
The massively lopsided compute makes speculative execution techniques (MTP/DFlash etc) way more effective, which makes modern MoE models quite usable
I’m running Qwen 3.8 Flash Next with Nota AI’s conservative NVFP4 quant at 30tk/s lowest decode, usually more around 45-55 for coding, and with prompt processing at a solid 2000tk/s
And that’s without very optimised kernels or anything, mostly standard vLLM
That said the compute power of the GB10 is awesome, my DGX Spark-like has been better than I expected.
I will say that explaining functors to my coworkers was always much simpler, and then naturally led to monads
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-proposes-ad...
They’ve technically got expedited approval for open weight models I think, but it still needs approval. And frontier level stuff gets extra scrutiny
With how “cheap” it is to achieve now, I’m pretty sure they will too. Though things like that still worry me, core tools I rely on becoming LLM-ported blobs of code that no human understands is a bit scary. I guess I’m old fashioned like that
Information is not dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument to me, but maybe my chemistry degree has me biased.
What I take issue with is the original sentence saying it’s “bad for you”, I was expecting new science showing that it’s, well, bad for you rather than “just” addictive