I replied that it would make no sense unless I was going to start running local inference or training my own models locally...
2 years later, and this MacBook Pro M4 Max w/48GB is the best $4k I've ever spent!
9,437 karma · joined November 23, 2008
Get in touch! jballanc@gmail.com https://github.com/jballanc
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jballanc; my proof: https://keybase.io/jballanc/sigs/pxb6FPsVF9hoQMyb2ap0euWoNG3YxwN2g4VY94RRxX8 ]
I replied that it would make no sense unless I was going to start running local inference or training my own models locally...
2 years later, and this MacBook Pro M4 Max w/48GB is the best $4k I've ever spent!
(adapted from the venerable "Ed, man! !man ed": https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html)
NetBSD is the only thing that made that possible.
If I had to guess, this is probably the USS John F. Kennedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)
Now I'm working on expanding the work into more parameters and improving performance. I just finished an extremely harsh test of a Nemotron-flavored RVW that consisted of stretches of a random assortment of domains interspersed with long runs of single domains. Across all of it the model didn't forget (and actually improved on some of the more challenging domains). PPL on SmolTalk is still in the ~18 range, which I'd like to get lower, but this is all with only 4B params.
Currently, I'm training a Llama 3.2-flavored RVW with only about 2B params to see how that turns out. Depending on results of that, I may take it to Gemma 4 next.
At least there's still Samurai.
"Infinity itself looks flat and uninteresting. Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity – distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless."
...the last version of Server shipped in 2021 (and the last real version shipped almost a decade before that).
Also, it takes a willful ignorance of history for ARM to claim this is the first time they've manufactured hardware. I mean, maaaaybe, teeeeechnically that's true, but ARM was the Acorn RISC Machine, and Acorn was in the hardware business...at least as much as Apple was for the first iPhone.
In the typical "experimental report" sort of paper, the focus is typically narrowed to a knifes edge around the hypothesis, the methods, the results, and analysis. Yes, there is the "Introduction" and a "Discussion", but increasingly I saw "Introductions" become a venue to do citation bartering (I'll cite your paper in the intro to my next paper if you cite that paper in the intro to your next paper) and "Discussion" turn into a place to float your next grant proposal before formal scoring.
Review papers, on the other hand, were more open to speculation. I remember reading a number that were framed as "here's what has been reported, here's what that likely means...and here's where I think the field could push forward in meaningful ways". Since the veracity of a review is generally judged on how well it covers and summarizes what's already been reported, and since no one is getting their next grant from a review, there's more space for the author to bring in their own thoughts and opinions.
I agree that LLMs have largely removed the need for review papers as a reference for the current state of a field...but I'll miss the forward-looking speculation.
Science is staring down the barrel of a looming crisis that looks like an echo chamber of epic proportions, and the only way out is to figure out how to motivate reporting negative results and sharing speculative outsider thinking.
What Americans seem to only just now be waking up to is that lack of work/life balance, lack of family leave accommodations, and loss of community has a very real, very tangible dollar amount cost. I’m very, very tired of the knee-jerk response to every “socialist” proposal being, “yeah, that’s great, but how are you going to pay for it?”
How are you going to pay for not having family leave? How are you going to pay for not having universal healthcare? How are you going to pay for not having tuition-free college for all? These choices have a cost, and Americans are paying that cost every day!
In other words, that filter that keeps Nazis, child predators, doxing, etc. off your favorite platform only exists because of section 230.
Now, one could argue that the biggest platforms (Meta, Youtube, etc.) can, at this point, afford the cost of full editorial responsibility, but repealing section 230 under this logic only serves to put up a barrier to entry to any smaller competitor that might dislodge these platforms from their high, and lucrative, perch. I used to believe that the better fix would be to amend section 230 to shield filtering/removal, but not selective promotion, but TikTok has shown (rather cleverly) that selective filtering/removal can be just as effective as selective promotion of content.