The concern for them is if that small group expands. Moving back and forth limits perceived lock in. Someone who moves between oai and Anthropic will also move to e.g. an open source when it’s good enough for their purposes, or will start experimenting and combining. This is how the market will slip through the attempted control.
Is that why US failed while building CP/m, Unix a few, Dos, Windows, MacOs, OS/2,…? A successful market does not impose monopolies. The more, the merrier.
I only have Windows at work, which means less pop ups. Nevertheless, lately I get forced updates with 5 minutes “grace period” more often than I’d like. Soon will be approaching pop up frequency.
I would argue using Claude in replacing a spreadsheet is potentially more of a tech debt than the spreadsheet itself. Now if you would use Claude to build a point application that performs the same standard analysis it might be better, but only marginally so.
Ownership does not imply co-identity. If my phone harms someone else, without me being responsible but e.g. the brand that updated its firmware? Your questions are good, and I don’t have the answers. I just think our current model doesn’t either.
That is not related to the ad hominem above, or bear to the claim of innovation. Just comparing them implies they are similar. Implementation quality, training data etc. are all optimisations. I have not seen a compelling argument Jev is different, maybe one that it’s better. I don’t have huge insights in the domain, so open to learning or changing opinion.
It a paradox when the article is claiming the prior art is absurd, but then goes on to analyse the one side and compare it to another for which most of the values (except scaling the concept) are unknown. And even for scaling, it uses the first, pre-laya instance to judge the limited schema, while overlooking that Laya is just doing this scaling. Important to note that prior art is not having built the exact same thing.
I think OP may be onto something real, while you are definitely right if we translate concepts directly. But maybe the challenge, with current platforms included, is because we try to cram identities by reference. If a phone had its own identity, with which you transact as with any party then lots of the security concerns would dissolve. To tone down crankiness, I refer to identity in the technical sense, not personality etc. This doesn’t solve the challenge but it might point to a different foundation for a security model.
I am pretty sure they were designing personal computers too, with Symbian and having witnessed blackberry. Some people may not remember, but people were practically begging Apple to release an ”iPod phone” for what at least felt like years, the market was ready for it and iPod was the key. Nokia was great, their devices too. But Apple won in hearts before it won in pockets. And I was not even a big fan, my first ever iPhone was an Xr, I could still see it.
I think it’s more accurate to say that Claude funded this research. As of today “agents” can commit crimes without repercussions, fund research and appropriate its results. Who knows what’s next. The opportunities for further revolutionary developments is astounding.
I am so trained now, that I didn’t even read what they were asking for. Just closed the tab and came here to see if there was anything of value. Too expensive to even read their wall.
Good point. Looks like it’s related to window size (incl for lzma btw). Lzma stays 0.9 and goes to 88.5 post 8.8M gap. Zstd -14 is close to lzma up to 4.4M where it jumps to 91.5. 14L seems to be the best overall for this scenario staying at 1.9.
There was a rumour/some basic statistics that smokers were at more risk in bad cases of Covid but nevertheless were proportionally less likely to have heavy Covid.
I think that’s the important distinction. Mistakes under pressure do happen. Unnecessary pressure is not a mistake, though, it’s a crime in this context. They could start planning earlier or commit to action later.
That’s no more than sophisticated avoidance. The phrase remains superficial and arbitrary, which is exactly what it needs to Not be in a public discussion that it’s supposed to support. It’s a reinforcement of the blank check mentality that permeates this industry.
The problem is, if we don’t confront it now, what will happen to this generation? We are cosy in our experienced bucket, but we should not let it happen, even if it pragmatically gives us more safety. I honestly think expertise should be less relevant with AI. The point of entry level was never just about them building expertise. It was also about them bringing fresh ideas, fresh culture -as annoying as it is sometimes - and challenge the establishment. We are moving towards a stagrowth of incremental “improvements”. Not 20 years. This year. When everything moves fast we cannot afford to have this Damocles sword hanging.
In my experience, rather than converging, you end up with a minced up concept. You have to know when to stop the loop. I filter the feedback too, and need to challenge some of the challenges as these models tend to be very conservative. I believe this is intentional, to control AI psychosis, which is indeed quite easy to get. My 2c. If you don’t have good control of what you’re working with you are either searching blind or end up with something basic.
Yes, someone can still blow up a pipe and they look the other way. On the other hand, you can also draw parallels to themselves becoming increasingly reliant on US vs UK in the past.
Curation is the new skill. The dismissal of a result on the basis of authorship is one of the reasons blind reviews are there. It sounds like we need more scientists. In al seriousness, this is a skill not just for science. Even at work, the amount of slop is rising exponentially and people are half-treating the symptom with its source, using AI to summarise. We will find our ways eventually.