That does not sound like progress to me.
We need single PCIe boards with dozens or hundreds of GB of RAM and processors that handle it well.
what's the TFLOPS/$ and TFLOPS/W and how does it compare with Nvidia, AMD, TPU?
from quick Googling I feel like Groq has been making these sorts of claims since 2020 and yet people pay a huge premium for Nvidia and Groq doesn't seem to be giving them much of a run for their money.
of course if you run a much smaller model than ChatGPT on similar or more powerful hardware it might run much faster but that doesn't mean it's a breakthrough on most models or use cases where latency isn't the critical metric?
Disclosing inside information is illegal, _even if it is false and fabricated_, if it leads to personal gains.
If I go to a bar, and overhear a pair of Googlers discussing something secret and overhear it, I can:
1) Trade on it.
2) Talk about it.
Because I'm not an insider. On the other hand, if I'm sleeping with the CEO, I become an insider.
Not a lawyer. Above is not legal advice. Just a comment that the line is much more complex, and talking about a potential acquisition is usually okay (if you're not under NDA).
I would pay a lot to see you try your ridiculous legal hokey-pokey on how to define an "insider."
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/01/18/insider-trading-l...
There's no reason for normal corporate training to discuss that element, because an employee who trades their employer's stock based on MNPI has near-certainly misappropriated it. The question of whether a non-employee has misappropriated information is much more complex, though.
That's the right way to run them.
If you want more nuance, talk to a lawyer or read case law.
Generally, insider trading requires something along the lines of a fiduciary duty to keep the information secret, albeit a very weak one. I'm not going to slice that line, but you see references in-thread.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/t052-c008-s001-w...
Case #1.
The prudent thing to do is to stay away from anything that might make you become a target of investigation, unless the gains outweigh the risk by a significant margin.
It'd also be a good time to watch you lose all that money on your hokey-pokey assumption.
Isn’t it public information the moment it’s said audibly in a public space?
You just can't trade on insider information.
That's a very complex legal line.
In my jurisdiction, that would involve me taking money (not just talking on the internet), so I'm not at risk, but in plenty of states, you can be. A lot of this hinges on the difference between "legal information" (which is generic) and "legal advice" (which is specific).
There are whole law review articles on this, which I read more than a decade ago, nerding on something related.
But that's beside the point. A major reason for the disclaimer is that people SHOULD be aware of my level of expertise. I do the same on technical posts too. I'll disclaim whether e.g. I have world-class expertise in a topic, worked in an adjacent domain, or read a blog post somewhere (and wish others did too). It's helpful to know people's backgrounds. I am NOT a lawyer specializing in securities law. I know enough to tell people the line is more complex than trading on non-public information, but I am utterly unqualified to tell people where that line is. If you're planning to do that, you SHOULD NOT rely on it. Either read relevant case law, talk to a genuine lawyer who specializes in this stuff, or find some other way to educate yourself on whether what you're doing is okay.
So it does matter I'm not a lawyer, if not for the reasons you mentioned.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks...