SideQuark

PC sales peaked 15 years ago, and have been declining ever since. Most of the best selling PC games are from 15-30 years ago.

As someone making mobile apps used by billions, demands from mobile users certainly grow and want this class of hardware capability. We spend significant effort trying to figure out how to deliver features asked for by our users for high end phones and cutting edge hardware, while not alienating the wider user base without these capabilities. Competitors do exactly the same.

Pretty much all cutting edge graphics papers now use some form of NN. To ignore the techniques and gains at the cutting edge would leave any hardware mfr behind. It’s not nonsense or marketing speak. It’s genuine capability improving technology.

To see a representative stream of papers, go to arxiv and look through the recent graphics papers.

Datacenters don’t run on desktop class GPUs. They’re well past that. It’s why NVidia moved most production of desktop GPUs to data center class hardware.

That’s completely backwards by orders of magnitude. Modern CPUs outrun L1 cache speed by a lot, L1 cache speed is on order of 1000-5000 GB/s, a GB/s is real bits used, is 8x of Gbps, and network speeds include significant overhead bits for frame packing and other data unused for the actual payloads.

And a GPU does orders of magnitude past this.

Networks are not even close.

https://chipsandcheese.com/p/a-new-year-and-new-tests-gpu-l1...

The vast majority of all commits to Linux were paid for by big business (around 85% last year, prev years similar). Intel, Google, AMD, IBM, Meta….

https://commandlinux.com/statistics/linux-kernel-contributor...

Not sure what you’re intending to show.

That page shows 99.5%+ uptime across all 11 of the services provided.

To do that at a small company world cost significant money.

To have it integrated and cheap for all those small shops is very valuable to them.

EU law requires the mark. Did you know about the level of the “so many levels”? If such a large market requires behavior by law, and quite reasonably so, it’s also quite reasonable to mark AI generated content as such.

All the slippery slope nonsense on this page has failed so many times it’s not worth debating. If you don’t like this tool, use another. When they embed your social security number and face and address in the mark get back to me.

If you read the article instead of the headline…….. it’s adding a fairly standard mark to AI generated images to let’s others know, in the same manner a giant swath of the GebAI industry has agreed to.

Agreed. But there are reasons it is perfect legal for a library to digitize physical copies they own, and then can lend, also under the legal name of "Controlled digital lending". Clearly public domain works are fine, and US law also has exemptions for preservation where a new copy cannot be obtained at a "fair price", and perhaps some other things.

So making it seem as if all "controlled digital lending" is not allowed under current law, even under the description you give, is not that simple.

> suit is mainly over whether controlled digital lending is legal at all

No, it was not, even supported by the quotes you pulled. Libraries right now, with publisher blessing, offer all manner of controlled digital lending. The suit was because IA did it buy undercutting the publishers copy rights to that legal market. Had IA simply done what every other library has done to provide controlled digital lending, there would be no suit.

Yeah, that worked really well for captchas. Now even simple models far surpass humans at recognition.

So there’s plenty of evidence.

Now provide evidence it’s technically possible to make any font “ that is financially infeasible for LLMs to parse but easy for humans.”

> I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

“Claude: make the scraper mimic a screen reader.”

And just like that, in 10 seconds, their site feeds my “screen reader” the real words.

So jealousy is the argument? If someone reads my work am I worse off? Why would I post it to the web? If someone indexes it so others can find it am I worse off? Should I complain they also make money helping others find it? If someone build on it in a way I did not do, never planned to do, and found really neat new tech from reading lots of works, why should I get so upset?

Seems oddly sour grapes.

You misrepresent the non cs ones by a factor of 5-10, even on cpu. First, you’re calling the prng twice per aes single call. That seems pretty dishonest already.

And using Golang? That ludicrously slow also.

To tell us what a cpu can do, do them using SIMD, you get pipelining and then many values per clock. Now try that with AES. Oh, you cannot, it’s not supported.

And people needing lots at full speed will do them on GPUs.

There is no world where even HW accelerated crypto comes close to non cs prngs on mainstream HPC systems.

Same - very good article.

As others here have pointed out, this is nonsense. The vast majority of PRNG calls on the planet are extremely high perf simulations, where crypto secure versions are a ludicrous cost in speed, energy, and sheer stupidity. That you and others do not understand is simply because you don’t see the places it’s required.

I’ve a PhD, have written papers on PRNGs, have worked in both cs prng and high perf prngs, have done decades of HPC projects, scientific sims. I get called in to develop precisely these high performance systems, and when you want to replace trillions to quadrillions of PRNG calls with one costing 10-1000x more, you’d get deservedly fired immediately.

You keep arguing about AES style code on a CPU. That’s not where people do high performance code. Try implementing AES and a fast prng on a GPU. You’ll soon find out how absolutely terrible cs-prngs are at performance. The measuremt isn’t how many ns per prng. It becomes how many thousands of prng generated per ns.

It’s bafflingly shortsighted for people with zero work in this area to continue to argue this. Choose the right tool for the job. Don’t project ignorance as knowledge. Both are useful advice.

Those were leading capital letters words. This is ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is different. As others pointed out, it’s used extensively in the click bait arena.

> The UC system and many other of the top universities in the country have also stopped looking at SAT scores.

Which led to a spectacular failure of incoming students to do basic math, lead to massive increases in failures in first year math courses.

Maybe removing signal loses knowledge about who is ready for standard classes?

Courts have ruled many things besides encryption count as anti-copying measures, and that the laws apply retroactively, so it’s not so clear such patches even on 360 are legal. Try selling such patches and test it.

When you conflate an 8-bit xor cipher with AES and a 10 line python NN with the complexity of trying to break AES with a NN by having "the model ... predict the key", I can see how you think such a thing is possible. It's nonsense.

For any NN to learn, the function it is approximating must structured enough to admit small set of parameters (i.e., not exponential), otherwise it will take exponentially many nodes to do anything. AES is not differentiable, as are all secure hash and encryption functions. This is a basic test that is used to attack everything.

So you'd get a NN that must be big enough to simply memorize all plaintext, key, output triplets, which is simply a lookup table. With around 2^768 nodes. Good luck.

Employing anti-protection methods to do to has been illegal since 1996 WIPO treaties, and then much more strongly in the 2002 DMCA.

So around 30 years now.

Have you ever built a NN model? Have you ever broken a crypto system, even a small one?

There are plenty of algorithms that quantum algorithms give no benefit to. Quantum is NOT a free for all making everything faster. It’s only faster at two very,very restricted things: hidden subgroup problem (which is used for RSA, but most problems do not rely on HSP), and Grover search, which reduces a specific search problem from O(N) to O(sqrtN).

You’re not giving it to a banker, you’re trading risk for return and flexibility. One can access savings at any time, any amount. Not true with bonds, maybe if you fiddle with indices.

Also bond returns have averaged 5% over decades, not 7.

Not taking all this into account, and simply claiming bogey men took your money, is misleading.

Single event upsets are forced on you by physics. There is no possible way to stop them all.

> Put all of these trends together, and I think that in 10-15 years, we are going to have consumer PCs (and phones!) running models doing pretty much anything that frontier models can do right now.

Not likely. The last 50 years had Moore’s law growth in compute. That’s over. Frontier models are roughly compressed all written text and a large part of images. Those don’t compress forever, and likely not a ton more than now.

Inference requires touching a significant of that per token.

All of these are up against fundamental limits, more or less.

That's not recursion. And reversing arrows on this category turns base cases into co-base, or start cases, (and these are still often called base cases in the literature), so it is still required.

Reversing arrows again, back to recursion, you have exactly the standard labeled bases case (well, cases in your code), and reversing arrows doesn't magically change algorithms or invent new structure, so it completely equivalent in the category.

For that code, the 1:1:... is exactly the terminating/starting point, reversing arrows in the category does nothing to change the requirements.

… which needs a terminating case, which cannot be not defined as the same recursion.

> What is it doing to feed my family in burundi?

That it has not solved everyone's problems on the planet is no argument it against what it has provided more than any other system.

It's surprising how many of your comments place you in the US, and not one in Burundi. I'm guessing based on your past comments you're not too consistent on your claims.

> Nobody said this, asshole

You claimed they provide little value against obvious reality. We're done.