I think the criticisms are too often dismissed as moving the goalposts or ignorant of potential, but short of recreating the active open bugs in Java, you've created a different thing whose differences have to be managed and it is unclear how helpful that may be despite the working implementations of subsets.
Yes, for-profit services often cost more and deliver less than non-profit or at-loss public services which make more sense for commodity services especially those needed to survive like healthcare or infrastructure.
This is a really good analogy because the complex intersections between multiple groups independently working and trying to collaborate together into a collaborative hierarchy towards one large goal was one of the things that hid a lot of the problems that led to the Challenger disaster, according to Feynmen.
FOA requests are a part of the total cost of ownership of these products. At some point a vendor, the state, a consultancy was negligent in this fact, and we should not entertain ideas of minimizing the issues I agree. Cities is the correct term, below that size are villages and hamlets and if they are incorporated they are a city.
This seems to imply that the capabilities being tested are like the descriptive words used in the prompts, but, as a category using random words would be just as valid for exercising the extents of the underlying math. And when I think of that reality I wonder why a list of tests like this should be interesting and to what ends. The repeated nature of the iteration implies that some control or better quality is being sought but the mechanism of exploration is just trial and error and not informative of what would be repeatable success for anyone else in any other circumstance given these discoveries.
Thank you for posting this. I'm struck with how there is a lot of studying of the behavior and isolating it from other assumptions and then these individual capabilities are then described as a new solution or discovered capability that would work with all of those other assumptions. This makes most all of the LLM research feel like whack a mole if the goal was to make accurate and reliable models by understanding these techniques. Instead, it's more like seeing faces in cars and buildings and other artifacts of patterns and pattern groupings and recognition of patterns. Building houses on sand, etc.
I spent a decade optimizing Python data science projects for a Fortune 100. I agree with the other sentiments that you can't really optimize Python itself because of these weird behaviors that seem to change the more you look at them... Mostly all of my optimization work was generic computer science stuff across the entire system and, in the data science world, this usually meant optimizing the database queries or the io throughput, or the overall shape of the kind of work that they were doing in order to parallelize it, or figure out how to simply do way less, etc. If someone actually came up to me with an actual problem with a Python code and it was the Python code that was not performing correctly, I would pretty immediately say let's use something else. I think the efforts to make a more efficient Python are really great, but I think the extreme utility of Python as a light glue to pull together lots of other things that are performing well in other computer languages is a widely recognized strength of the Python ecosystem.
I don't think there's any mechanism inside of language models to accurately weigh this kind of nuance. I mean you would think that it would work like that but I don't see how it could or would in practice. The quantity of words and relationship to their description of reality is not something that can be directly calculated, let alone audited.
I think about facets of this a lot. The conservative ideals of thinking only in zero-sum characterizations of political problems, that someone must go without in order for someone to gain, or that a conservative ideal is to be led by some authority both don't comport with how knowledge can also be gained in society through peer to peer relationships or the very idea that wealth can be created. That the world doesn't have to follow conservative ideals is how a statement like that becomes so funny since it is the current conspiratorial reflex of the right.
A lot facts that people deem liberal or leftist or something are simply statistically consistent with the world literature as a whole and problematic for conservative ideals.
All of these techniques just push the problems around so far. And anything short of 100% accurate is a 100% failure in any single problematic instance.
This is something that uv advocates should pay attention to, there are always contexts that need different assumptions, especially with our every growing and complex pile of libraries and systems.
Right, but my point is is that even if you turn the temperature all the way down, you're not guaranteed to get an accurate or truthful result even though you may get a mostly repeatable deterministic result, and there is still some indeterminacy.
Not to be flippant but this takes a couple of hours to essentially make the point that the complexities of the world resist summarization or at least the opportunistic summarization that can be used to sway the inattentive public (among other nuances to this) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXsPU25B60
You simply can't get the software or support for a lot of smaller solutions. It can be sometimes easier to do the seemingly more difficult thing, and sometimes because all the money goes to those more difficult seeming technical problems and solutions.
Truly a wonderful revelation I had to stop reading the time table and see that it says every 15 minutes or so a bus will come during the times I'd expect it to, worst case 45, etc.