Lerc

If bitcoin were being used as intended, as a currency, would that not also produce this effect?

It is data, It doesn't have to be ground truth Depth. In fact the difference between what optically appears to be at one depth and the depth map depth is in-itself information. You have described a mechanism that the model can use to identify that what it is supposed to be enhancing is more likely to be hair.

I'm rather surprised that it doesn't take the z-buffer as an input. I would have thought that would have provided useful information, it's one of the more useful forms of contolnet.

Yeah, the microcode ops are a pretty good demostration on how it is all just a sequence of connect-this-to-that with a bus for the this and fixed functions on all of the that.

It depends on what the joke is. I can see people making an image for a joke that they already have in their head. Or they can AI generate an image and think up with a caption to make whatever it generated is funny (partially clips does exactly this with clipart). Sometimes it can be completely AI generated because the humour comes from seeing how the model misconstrued what it was supposed to do. A lot of these require humans to do the work of curation.

I'd be kind of tempted to give these box art images to an AI and ask it to make the game. I suspect there would be much amusement to be had in seeing how they do at a cursed task like that.

It's strange, I learned Forth on the Atari and found that the cover was a surprisingly accurate depiction of how I turned out.

>My Rust skill is weak, and I learned absolutely nothing about the 6502 or CPU design.

But you could have if you had have chosen to. Did you ask the AI what the slow parts were, and why?

Why did you want to emulate a 6502 in the first place? If you just wanted to run some 6502 code then that's ok, you didn't really need to know much about the 6502. If you wanted to know how much better it could be if it had an single register that was the high byte of zero page address accesses then you probably would have to be engaged enough to find out, and the AI would help you answer questions. You could try rearranging the lookup table at the bottom of the die to see if you could make your own instruction set that would perform better overall. AI would help with that too, but to direct it to do so you would have to be learning something.

I guess it depends on your goal.

I'm making one of these myself. I'm not using AI to design the CPU, but I am using it to make the simulator and editor. I liked some of the design choices in Sebastian Lague's simulator for simplicity, so I'm making something like that, but web based and that I can use on a tablet to doodle designs while sitting on the sofa.

I did get rather nerd sniped after deciding I didn't want to lay all of the tracks myself and got it to autoroute as it went. That was a rabbit hole in itself. It seems even when using AI you can be sucked into trying to figure out a tricky problem that you don't strictly have to solve.

>The _vast majority_ of AI spend is wasted

I don't think this part is correct. It is spent on things. There will be a quantity that will go training models that do not contribute research data or active use that you could say that the resources were wasted. If the money is spent on infrastructure or the resulting models found active use (or provided research insights) then I don't think you can say that the money has been wasted.

I think a large proportion of the advances in AI that have come in the last year have come from being able to see the models from the previous year in action.

That does not guarantee that money will be returned to investors, Just that it wasn't wasted.

I think the statement is the wrong one.

I think their claim they can make, assuming their evidence is true, is

"AI needs $6T in annual revenue for every investment in AI to be profitable"

I think some people will make a lot of money and more people will lose a lot of money.

Most of those investing know this, they are taking the risk of losing a lot to attempt to be one of the ones that make a lot.

A lot of early internet tech companies went bust, a few became extremely successful. At the time I would see high valuations and ask "Yes, but how do they make money". Most of those with an unclear answer to that question are not around now. The ones who had a tangible plan to make money, even if they were making a loss at the time, tended to survive.

There is a lot of Dumb money going into AI, when that is the dumb money of wealthy individuals, I am more than happy to let them receive no return while paying for infrastructure. There's a problem when the dumb money comes from dumb individuals who are routing money from others who do not have a say in how it gets invested.

That is not an AI specific problem, that is a problem where people can make decisions where others carry the risk without their consent. That is the problem that needs to be met head on.

I think it might be taking a position in the use of AI, They don't appear to be concealing their use.

If the papers were of a uniformly high standard then I might not have a problem with it.

If they are hoping some of them are good and the review process will filter out the bad then it seems like they are not doing research, they are writing hypotheses and at pushing the work of testing them onto the reviewers.

I could also see that being done to make some sort of statement about the review process, but it's not clear if that is their goal.

He's wasting people's time, which is already the resource that many people lack any to spare. I'm not sure if he realises this part.

>not many households include children in the consensus process.

That was at least something I could address when I became a parent.

My daughter mentioned to me a few weeks ago that she was confused by the fact that all of her friends seek her out when they need to know the right thing to do. I told her it is because she has a moral compass that you can see from space.

I remember reading a paper about a model that used a parser bound to the end of a LLM where it squashed all logprobs for outputs that were parsing errors. I have not seen this used in the manner I thought I would. I thought it would have been entirely possible for a model to construct it's own grammar for how it would prefer to respond and then opt to generate tokens that matched (with a metacode to turn it off obviously).

That said, I think the advantage of Jev style approaches is not their capabilities, but rather the capabilities that they have for a much lower resource requirement.

I felt the cold a great deal and preferred a higher temperature. The issue is not the temperature, it was that my preference was different to his and his solution was to force his preference because we disagreed on a point.

Obviously it is not the only thing, but an example of using control instead of reason or consensus.

For the record I did not forbid my daughter to use social media. I told her why I did not use it myself. She finally got a facebook account because it was required to engage with her university courses. She was livid.

Is product astroturfing illegal in any jurisdictions? I can't see a particularly compelling reason for allowing advice from people deliberately concealing a financial incentive.

My father blocked things from me, not internet based obviously because they weren't available. But things like fixing the heater so it wouldn't be set higher than what he considered reasonable.

I assume he's still alive, but I haven't communicated with him for years.

Is the ability to define humanity required?

In one sense that encourages me, if he keeps remaking himself there is a chance that he will be deradicalised.

I agree about the possibility of existence of these, the issue is that when the subject is more and more visible the ratio of quality work to self-serving work drops off precipitously. Sometimes it is not easy to tell which is which. Everybody is prone to being manipulated by good production values, and an air of informed authority to some degree.

I remember a friend watching a Tony Blair speech coming up to Iraq saying "I disagree with everything he's saying, but the language and sense of authority is strong enough that it feels like it is convincing me anyway"

This seems to be a fairly common opinion, as does the opinion that this sits as a counterpoint to.

There has been a divergence that is quite stark. I have seen it argued that this is a reflection of ability, and that as a skill multiplier those lacking in skill are feeling left behind. I'm not certain that this is accurate. I definitely see people who have made things that impressed me in the past have been more likely to embrace AI. It may just be a measure of a type of personality.

I have noticed that people who have a strong sense of possessiveness over what they create are more resistant, but those who create in order to have the world contain the thing they are making are happy to have anything that will enable them to contribute to the world.

Accuracy. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

Musk appears different to different people. An insight into what, if any, represents the real person, and in what contexts Musk presents a persona, and why?

Perhaps I was harsh on historians, they do strive for accuracy, but they themselves will tell you how much perspectives of the day colour the representations. In many respects, it is similar to science. The answers that history give us are not the guaranteed truth, they are just the best answers that we have a consensus on at the moment.

I would like to see an accurate representation of what it is that is up with Elon Musk, but I doubt there will be an objective analysis possible until the impact of the analysis is purely one of historical record.

Even then history isn't terribly objective, it just tends to be better than what is said when those who say things can gain or lose advantage based upon what they say.

I think much of that is not due to limitations of their capability.

I think the text is bland because they are aiming to produce bland text.

Make it interesting in any particular direction and someone may not like it.

I agree about the value of community. I also think that coding with AI assistance is very useful and possibly going to become the dominant form of software development.

These principles can coexist, but there are forces working against it. The problem is when people post antagonistic comments in response to good faith attempts to make something useful because they used, or were imagined to have used AI.

We have mass produced AI garbage that is filling the domain that Spam used to occupy. We also have people sincerely wanting to make things and being dismissed as making slop. These behaviours should not be met with equivalent responses, and they should not be. AI is removing the barriers for some to develop, of course their first attempts are not going to be very good. Hurling abuse at them is neither a good way to help them improve, nor is it a thing that a good human being does.

Instead of dismissing something that another person has worked on as slop, consider if the person is likely to accept constructive feedback about what it is that their thing is lacking. Maybe if that occurs their next thing might be less sloppy.

Oh excellent, last time I saw it proposed there were, well, ructions.

Type inference is my preference but I thought that would have been a step too far for some.

I used to have object pascal as my main language, and it has a lot in its favour. But when I go back to it I find two things drag it down.

Pre definition of variables. I would like to be able to define variables on first assignment and scoped to the begin/end in which that happens, I don't think there is a good remaining argument to keep them above the statements.

The namespace is cluttered with legacy usage, making the many years of advancement require odd. Combinations of prefixes.

I still think there is a scope for a light fork that changes the name to distinguish it and starts the RTL afresh using the decades of hindsight and improvements.

Isn't almost the enrire world human communication from the perspective of an AI agent?

The rules of their task forbade influencing humans, they seemed to follow that to the point where they considered asking for permission to be social engineering (which technically it is)

I think they need to consider the consequences of their actions, I don't know if they were given the ability to restrict themselves based on their own decisions. If the restrictions are limited to what humans can imagine that they might do they are doomed to failure.

It's like assuming a piece of software is secure because you have blocked every exploit you could think of.

Is it a problem for you that YouTube's watch history is littered with videos you didn't watch, but got recorded as being watched because the mouse pointer moved over one of their suggestions for a moment.

They do indeed, but that does not make the method by which they choose to do so free of consequences.

Bank robbers, gun runners, and chiropractors also need to put food in the table.

I wouldn't know, the articles talking about the loss of learning are paywalled.