lwansbrough

> But here there is no obvious right answer.

According to you. That's not the opinion of every prospective employer. Hedging is the right strategy.

I learned his fast knot about a decade ago and never looked back. It's probably saved me dozens of seconds over that time.

If it were illegal it wouldn’t be readily available. You’d have to seek it out. People seeking it out wouldn’t be using it to generate a sunset.

Can anyone think of any negative externalities of making generative photorealistic images illegal?

I can think of a lot of positives. The negatives amount to a convoluted argument about the limits of free speech.

I think people are excited for new ideas in cinema. A24’s track record is far from perfect, but I respect their willingness to try things. In my opinion, this movie is no exception. Very meandering and largely devoid of any real plot. Did a good job holding the tension at points, but ultimately fell flat in delivering on that tension.

Probably worth a watch if you enjoy the genre. If you’re someone who just enjoys a good story, this is a pretty easy skip.

“Forensic investigators, reviewing the black box communications, discovered that the pilots had identified and were aware of a device named ‘bomb’ on the airplane but elected to take no action.”

Something new please. We should be looking forward not pining for what could have been.

The future of air superiority, particularly with respect to sovereign defence is passive or quantum radar, autonomous A2/AD and directed energy.

They are key-chain Furbies.

Is it a massive difference, or is it a small difference? At the end of the day 99% of React projects have a transpilation step and utilize some form of “magic compiler” somewhere along the line.

The simplicity of JSX is overvalued. It just means more code, and typically uglier code, to achieve the same behaviour as Vue. Which is basically the theme of React when you compare the two libraries.

It’s a distinction without a difference. Both need to be transpiled, what happens under the hood is of little concern to anyone.

Please explain React’s reactive data binding since it’s apparently much simpler than v-model=

;)

Yeah man it’s pure JS trust me just add this little transpiler and you’re good to go. What do you mean you don’t have a bundler?

This sentiment only really applies if you’re coming from Vue 1/2 to Vue 3. The Composition API is definitely more like React but makes some better design decisions that make it easier to work with than React. Such as implicit reactivity.

Yeah you’re actually right I was looking at the API section instead of the Hooks section. Perhaps another demonstration of React’s verbose API surface.

I definitely sympathize with the feelings about the Composition API. Though I’ve moved past it because looking at React’s visible complexity (useMemo, useEffect - which apparently have changed names again since I last looked) - Vue has clearly chosen a superior API design.

It does, if you care about ergonomics. The reactivity model is simpler and arguably less error prone.

It does have its own templating syntax, which is trivial to learn. No more cumbersome to learn than JSX, which is a templating language designed by the React team. Not sure why you chose to make the distinction between JSX and Vue’s DSL as if JSX wasn’t developed for the sole purpose of facilitating React’s virtual DOM.

Had a couple thoughts in this realm, and am working them into my own harness. Curious to see what others think. I'm not sure if this is generalizable, as my harness is fairly specialized:

- Breaking down a problem into a planned execution, with executing agent providing the initial plan which includes explicit objectives such as which tools it calls and what it would consider to be a successful execution.

- The harness then executes the plan in order

- Each step that involves a tool call will be executed by breaking down the tool call into component parts: the harness interrogates the agent for a valid parameter value for the current tool argument. The tool definition contains validators for each argument. If the validator fails, the harness rewinds the conversation and injects the failure reason into the next try.

- Once the agent produces a valid response for the argument, the harness proceeds to the next argument.

- Once all the arguments have been filled, the harness calls the tool. It passes the agent's initial expected value along with the actual value, along with any errors that may have been produced and asks the agent if it is satisfied with the result. If it isn't, the agent provides a reason and the harness then retries the tool call process from the beginning rewinding the conversation and inserting the reasoning for the retry.

- The agent may request to re-plan if it discovers a flaw in its initial plan. The harness will also attempt to re-plan if the agent produces too many failures in a row.

This proves to be quite effective at reducing tool call failures. One benefit is that the sub-agent gets a perfect conversation history where it makes no mistakes. I'm not sure if it's actually better at completing tasks though, I haven't tried to benchmark it.

The people working at the leading edge of this stuff seem to believe that there is a need for parallel models that solve different problems.

A crow exhibits some degree of intelligence in what is a very small brain compared to humans. There is overlap in the problem solving skills of the dumbest humans and the smartest crows.

So the question is: what is that? Yann LeCun seems to think it’s what we now call world models. World models predict behaviour as opposed to predicting structured data (like language.)

If your model can predict how some world works (how you define world largely depends on the size of your training data), then in theory it is able to reason about cause and effect.

If you can combine cause and effect reasoning with language, you might get something truly intelligent.

That’s where things seem to be going. Once we have a prototype of that system, there will be many questions about how much data you really need. We’ve seen how even shrinking LLMs with 1-bit quantization can lead to models that exhibit a fairly strong understanding of language.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to see some very intelligent low (relatively) memory AI systems in the next couple years.

Decentralized cooperation and associated protocols is a lot harder than just inserting messages into a MySQL database and then displaying those messages.

Being ruled by Generation Lead doesn’t seem like a great improvement.

Yes. There’s no other explanation for 14x, that’s nuts.

I had an idea that devs could build wasm modules that would define tools and instructions, and a harness could load them. Kind of like MCP but with certain assurances about the sandboxing. You could build a package manager around these behaviours.

I still kind of think it’s a decent idea but it’s too close to MCP with drawbacks that make it a harder sell than MCP. It’s hard to compete on functionality from a secure sandbox if users decide they don’t care about security.

I was able to pull up an example of a Chinese model doing censorship in 2 seconds. So there is clearly a difference in the type of censorship happening if it’s harder than that for you to prove.

Your example is already under dispute by actual humans. Expecting non-AGI to get it right is not realistic.

This image really helped me put it into perspective. https://x.com/AndyMasley/status/2032858292184117748

Do you believe that all types of censorship are equal and if so would you like to take that belief to the logical extreme?

Please point to an example where the information (or more importantly its practical application) is both censored but is also not legitimately harmful and/or illegal.

Do you have any actual examples of political history being actively censored by western models? Or are we just doing hypotheticals for fun?

Ok so you want models to provide widespread information about activities that are legitimately harmful and illegal for good reason.

And that’s the same as censoring a country’s violent history to you guys?

How intellectually dishonest.

Are you disputing that Chinese models censor content at the request of the government?

https://i.imgur.com/cVtLuj1.jpeg

The absence of information is also Xi Jinping Thought.

Apparently!

What’s Trump got to do with this?

If you invest anything in the Canadian market you probably hold some Brookfield.

Carney’s investments are in a blind trust.

What more could be done, in your view?