It would be absolutely hilarious to follow up the absurd response with a public records request for all documentation around how they calculated that sum.
I mean, they could break it, but the devastation would be immense and then everyone would hate us even more. Getting involved was always a losing strategy.
On a recent 3k mile cross-country trip I was shocked to see how prevalent Flock cameras were, even in tiny back-woods locations. I'm fairly certain you cannot drive long distances in the US anymore without Flock having a detailed record of your travels.
Given the fact that Taalas was claiming 1/10th the hardware cost and 1/10th the power consumption, yeah, companies would absolutely jump at that. Now, whether they can achieve that in practice is yet to be seen.
You should check into hall effect mechanical keyboards. They can have a floating actuation point for retrigger that is based on detecting press, partial release, press. It's really pretty cool.
Funny that you are comparing Copyrights and Trade Secrets. The monopoly granted on Copyright is predicated on it being published. Trade Secrets, by definition, are not published. Copyright is granted based on the value to the public provided by the author publishing their works. Trade Secrets have no such protection as they are not meant for the public good. They have other protection from theft, but once they are published, there is no protection of the information.
I started on Oracle, then spent many years on MySQL, and am now using mostly Postgres. I vastly prefer Postgres over MySQL. Mind you, I haven't really worked with MySQL in a few years now, so it might have improved a lot for all I know. The one thing that initially drew me to Postgres over MySQL was DDL being transactional.
Taalas claims significant cost, speed, and power differential with running on Nvidia (and similar) hardware. Their whole thesis is that with making the hardware cost less, run faster, and run with less power mixed with their claimed fast production cycle for new weights, companies would plan on purchasing and then relegating the other chips to different workloads at the next update cycle. And the chips have facilities for fine-tunes that can by dynamically loaded. The info I've seen has been very light on details, but if they can even get halfway where they are planning, it'll be a massive shift.
Unfortunately the response to that right now is to nuke everything that isn't within a strict set of constraints. That helps with the bad bulk-scrapers, but hits everyone else as well as collateral damage.
I watch a lot of tech adjacent YT videos mostly. I really haven't heard this being used. So weird the different bubbles we all live in and just don't realize. Is the usage recent or historic? What contexts is it used in? Is it common in American English, British English, or one of the several other groupings?
I don't suppose you recall where you picked it up? I really am curious on this, regardless what all the downvoters happen to think. The linguistics that surface in the training mixed with the system prompts is really interesting. Annoying as well, but still interesting.
I've never heard the term "load-bearing" used outside of the civil engineering world until the more recent versions of Claude suddenly decided everything was "load-bearing".
Did you internalize Claude terminology, use Claude to write/translate your post, or lead Claude into temptation by being the OG?
Asking out of genuine curiosity and not at all trying to throw shade.
Having not watched Foundation, what was the issue there?
I loved Altered Carbon Season 1, but couldn't get into Season 2 and never finished it. I never read the book(s?), so the storyline was standalone for me.
I find your comment here interesting. The parent never called out LLM-coding, they said "sloppers". If we take that choice of word as deliberate, it stands to reason there's a distinction there between "sloppers" and LLM assisted coding in general. You quoting "This is not true of every slopper" as proof they are equating the two seems like a weakly defended assertion. It's entirely possible there are 3 broad classes of LLM users in the parent's explicit and implicit beliefs. The thing is, you don't know any more than I know. You are attributing a held belief to someone that you inferred from incomplete information. That being said, if you based your assertion on external, unreferenced knowledge, then you could potentially know they hold that belief.
I'd venture to say that a large number of developers are using LLM tooling at this point. Not all of those developers are out there generating massive, poorly engineered PRs and wasting project maintainer time. For me there are at least those 3 broad categories of user of LLMs for software development, maybe more if I sat and thought about it for a while.
Any interpretation that excludes non-citizens leaves us in a situation where we've disclaimed legal jurisdiction over the behavior of those individuals. The reductio ad absurdum there would be that they aren't subject to any laws of our country anymore.
Those taalus chips apparently run at 1/10 the power as the current SOTA GPU setups. If they can execute even partially on their plan, it'll be a literal game changer.
They are betting on fast release cycles coupled with much lower costs (purchase and operations) mixed with the ability to have dynamic fine tunes on top of the static model.