They did the decent thing with the Versa and refunded everybody.
4,320 karma · joined November 11, 2016
Of course not. That would probably infringe on advertising standards. But it is the clear implication.
If I’m remembering right, the tagline on the Mac mini was “rip mix burn”
If you can call being an “also ran” in a field they had a ten year march on their competitors in success, yeah.
Truth be told it was the shoddy code they were forced to use for the vanity of their paymaster might well have held them back, though manifestly that is not a bad thing. Probably the best outcome, really.
Seems to me they’re waiting it out. Everything could change in a presidential election and the European economy wins either way. It is an economic bloc after all.
What you describe would be what’s called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”
I found LM studio to be a nice starting point. Frindlier and more featureful than Ollama and not as intimidating as llama.cpp (though you will want to use that eventually)
Qwen on the other hand got straight to work with astonishing competency on the same system.
From what I read llama3 needs beefier compute to reliably invoke tools, which I presume relates to it focussing more on simulating AGI rather than being a useful tool.
I presume you mean, that what I and others is observing is patterns in mere rhetoric. That this is just unimportant window dressing around the actual problem solving.
Yet, generation of rhetoric seems to be one of the key usecases, and one of the key features that makes this technology seem “intelligent”.
access is provided under condition you respect these restrictions
You are not obliged to honour this. It is not enforceable so it seems strange.
Browsers enforce it, but it can be turned off and nobody expects it to be implemented by a simple REST client application.
It’s a gentleman’s agreement. It’s a statement of expectation to the browser. On the one hand it may be for the protection of the browser user, from cross site attacks, and from malicious code on the web.
But crucially it provides little protection for the endpoints themselves bar accidental misuse.
It is very unusual and rare example of “cooperative” security in a web that’s frequently so adversarial.
And that’s what makes it hard to grasp.
But yeah 95% of the consumer market don't care about this and it's only adding unnecessary costs
The second part is the hard part and requires coordination
It wouldn’t be expensive or especially hard to do but there is no payoff for the network. Remember they make money off scam calls too
Since as long as I can remember these organisations have been optimised for profit, not for GAF and that’s why they’re being savaged by regulation and OTT competitors now
There has been no market forces compelling them to do this and until recently when it got really bad, no political or regulatory forces
tl;dr na bro