einrealist

I ask myself how much the focus of this industry on transformer models is informed by the ease of computation on GPUs/NPUs, and whether better AI technology is possible but would require much greater computing power on traditional hardware architectures. We depend so much on traditional computation architectures, it might be a real blinder. My brain doesn't need 500 Watts, at least I hope so.

At least the AI-pornbots will operate from space. /s

Let's hope that, thanks to AI, the young man will now have a healthier diet! /s

It's going to be fun constantly repairing all those solar arrays. We'll be destroying our planet with the rocket launches alone. But hey! The more ridiculous the idea, the greater the chance that Trump and his conspiracy-laden circle will embrace it. It works in science fiction movies and novels, why not in reality, duh. /s

Sure, but you want to make sure that changes propagate as soon as possible from the central authority. And for AWS, the control plane for that authority happens to be placed in US-EAST-1. Maybe Blockchain technology can decentralize the control plane?

They don't need an IPO. "Private equity funds" are already being offered to retail investors. Less oversight and a way to pass the risk to gullible retail investors.

It sounds like they want to avoid split-brain scenarios as much as possible while sacrificing resilience. For things like DNS, this is probably unavoidable. So, not all the responsibility can be placed on AWS. If my application relies on receipts (such as an airline ticket), I should make sure I have an offline version stored on my phone so that I can still check in for my flight. But I can accept not to be able to access Reddit or order at McDonalds with my phone. And always having cash at hand is a given, although I almost always pay with my phone nowadays.

I hope they release a good root cause analysis report.

And don't forget the AI companies. People are happy to send their highly personal information (and company secrets) to them so that a chatbot can use it. Didn't OpenAI just announce a porn feature?

OpenAI is receiving far more data with a far greater privacy impact than social networks. And all this is happening at a time when the US is transitioning from a somewhat functioning democracy to an autocratic and fascist system.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/chatgpt-pa...

For users, it was more of a debacle, with Amazon being one of the biggest companies to rely on stable permissive licensing. Users who could not afford commercial licenses or were unable to accept the new license for legal reasons found themselves in limbo. I am sure that Elastic lost (potential) business to OpenSearch (and AWS). By how much is hard to measure. Sure, they were able to retain enough business. It probably attests to good service and product.

Be careful, or you could end up in the same situation with Flyway. I'm not sure how many contributors are employed or paid by Redgate Software. But what's to stop them from doing the same to Flyway once their competitor has made this change to Liquibase?

The commercial use permissions look murky to me. But I'm not in the legal department.

What's more important is trust. What's to stop them from changing the licence again after evaluating the impact of the first change? Liquibase has collected "anonymous" metrics by default since version 4.30 (do they consider an IP address and timestamp as PII?). As soon as I saw that, I anticipated this scenario. It was not really a surprise. They have a way to analyse the impact. Now, I am reassessing the risks.

Ah, my fault. But that does not change the point I try to make: project ownership is equally important, if you cannot just fork and maintain some open source software yourself. It's something to include in risk calculations.

The ability to fork something doesn't mean its viable or reasonable for everyone. That's a risk to users in case of both extremes: bait-and-switch tactics (mostly due to commercial motivations) or abandoned projects (see ASF Attic).

Don't confuse the license with project ownership. Flyway is owned by Red Gate Software and the community edition of Flyway is licensed under Apache 2.0. Apache Atlas is owned by the Apache Software Foundation AND licensed under Apache 2.0.

I have just created a task to find an alternative in case 4.x cannot be used anymore.

I have nothing against someone trying to monetise useful software. However, switching from an open-source software (OSS) licence is essentially a bait-and-switch tactic. This immediately destroys trust. It also destroys the part of the user base that is difficult to monetise but still has the potential to be monetised. I was hoping that the Elastic and TerraForm debacles had taught people a lesson.

Flyway is also questionable at this point. If Liquibase is switching, what's to stop Flyway?

Unless a fork is happening, I'm considering creating my own migration library tailored to our actual needs and usage. It should not be so hard. Liquibase was more of a convenience.

I call it "Vibe Prompting".

Even minor changes to models can render previous prompts useless or invalidate assumptions for new prompts.

That's the assumption and motivation:

> I wanted to create an architecture that minimized future work on both the admin app and the controller network layer. That way, the business could lean on its in-house development experience to make changes after the project.

From your perspective as a UI developer, you would need to update all clients (in the building) if something on the server changes, e.g. if a new button or game state is added. HATEOAS is a good architectural choice if you want to minimise the likelihood of having to change the client implementation.

I use HATEOAS as much as possible in my daily work. It is a good way to think about state, state transitions and what capabilities a client must have. That's the actual part of the author's motivation. It provides the "in-house development" with paradigms how to make changes.

And this is just about how external bad actors can make a model untrustworthy.

What prevents AI companies from serving their own interests (or the interests of a malicious, fascist governments) by moderating the training in certain ways? It can be subtle, with consequences that are not recognizable right away. Didn't Musk already complained about Grok being "too woke"?

And how can I trust those companies with my own data?

So much in this AI bubble is just fueled by a mixture of wishful thinking (by people who know better), Science Fiction (by people who don't know enough) and nihilism (by people who don't care about anything other than making money and gaining influence).

Just absurd.

Yep.

P/E ratios - VW 6 - BYD 13 - Tesla 200

Tesla's valuation is absurdly crazy.

Perhaps this data could provide a useful example for Apple and OpenAI in their defence against Elon's laughable lawsuit. It's funny how xAI is almost at the bottom.

And people talk to GPT about very private things, using it as a shrink. What can go wrong.

Its not shipping the model in Xcode. You are still sending your data off to a remote provider, hoping that this provider behaves nicely with all this data and that the government will never force the provider to reveal your data.

A World Model is a theoretical type of model that has knowledge about the "real world" (or whatever world or bounds you define). It can infer causalities from concepts within this world.

Yes, you can use Genie 3 to train other models. Its far from perfect. You still need to train Genie 3. And its training and outputs must be useful in the context of what you want to train other models with. That's a paradox. The feedback loop needs to produce useful results. And Genie 3 can still hallucinate or produce implausible responses. Symbolism is a wide term. But a "World Model" needs it to make sense between concepts (e.g. Ontologies or the relation of movement and gravity).

> “Successful” is importantly distinct from “correct.”

This is the most important sentence describing the fundamental issue that LLMs have. This severely limits the technology's useful applications. Yet OpenAI and others constantly lie about it.

The article very clearly explains why models won't be able to generalise unless RL is performed constantly. But that's not scalable, has other problems in itself. For example, it still runs into paradoxes where the training mechanism has to know the answer in order to formulate the question. (This is precisely where the concept of World Models comes in or why symbolism becomes more important.)

LLMs perform well in highly specialised scenarios with a well-defined and well-known problem space. It's probably possible to increase accuracy and correctness by using lots of interconnected models that can perform RL with each other. Again, this raises questions of scale and feasibility. But I think our brains (together with the other organs) work this way.

> Twitter sucked [...] Electric cars sucked [...] Phones sucked

All these things are not black boxes and they are mostly deterministic. Based on the inputs, you EXACTLY know what to expect as output.

That's not the case with LLMs, how they are trained and how they work internally.

We certainly get a better understanding on how to adjust the inputs so we get a desired output. But that's far from guaranteed at the same level as the examples you mentioned.

That's a fundamental problem with LLMs. And you can see that in how industry actors are building solutions around that problem. Reasoning (chain-of-thought) is basically a band-aid to narrow a decision tree, because the LLM does not really "reason" about anything. And the results only get better with more training data. We literally have to brute-force useful results by throwing more compute and memory at the problem (and destroying the environment and climate by doing so).

The stagnation of recent model releases does not look good for this technology.

That's why I call it "Vibe Prompting" instead of "Vibe Coding". If the model is changed by the gate keeper, your previous prompts might just be useless.

Good observation. To Trump, tariffs are a simple tool that he can use to demonstrate that he is taking action. It's a spectacle, something to make him appear busy. He is not interested in the details or the actual effects. There is no strategy. Everything is just vibes. He is satisfied by vague, non-binding promises. Trump is inherently stupid and lazy.