lambdaone

The title as posted is misleading and sensational: we should use the actual paper title, "H-Neurons: On the Existence, Impact, and Origin of Hallucination-Associated Neurons in LLMs", which is far less sensational.

It could be made much less vulnerable by dividing the gas storage balloon structures into a set of multiple smaller structures, ideally with some further internal partitioning so a single punctured surface does not release all the gas in that structure. Everything else is as 'hard' or 'soft' as any other piece of industrial plant, and can be hardened further by putting it inside a reinforced building or set of buildings, internal redundancy etc.

Very few people are excited by the "the potential of the AI PC" that Microsoft is trying to push, but rather infuriated by the attempt to buffalo them into replacing their perfectly good working hardware for no apparent gain in function. Microsoft clearly feel that the price of being hated for forcing this change is worth the revenue gained. They might be wrong.

I see this as complementary to other energy storage systems, including sodium ion batteries; each will have its own strengths and weaknesses. I expect energy storage density cost will be the critical parameter here, as this looks best suited to do diurnal storage for solar power systems near out-of-town predictable power consumers like data centers.

Very unlikely. All the technologies involved work best at scale; for example, the area-to-volume ratio of the liquid gas storage vessel is a critical parameter to keep energy losses low.

A theoretical study shows 77%, which is in the same ballpark: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...

A few percent here of there is not that important if the input energy is cheap enough.

Fantastic detail, thank you.

This seems almost too good to be true, and the equipment is so simple that it would seem that this is a panacea. Where are the gotchas with this technology?

Clearly power capacity cost (scaling compressors/expanders and related kit) and energy storage cost (scaling gasbags and storage vessels) are decoupled from one another in this design; are there any numbers publicly available for either?

There are lots of Stratum 0 servers out there; basically anything with an atomic clock will do. They all count seconds independently from one another, all slowly diverging over time, with offset intervals being measured by mutual synchronization using a number of means (how is this done is interesting all by itself). Some atomic clocks are more accurate than others, and an ensemble of these is typically regarded as 'the' master clock.

To quote the ITU: "UTC is based on about 450 atomic clocks, which are maintained in 85 national time laboratories around the world." https://www.itu.int/hub/2023/07/coordinated-universal-time-a...

Beyond this, as other commenters have said, anyone who is really dependent on having exact time (such as telcos, broadcasters, and those running global synchronized databases) should have their own atomic clock fleets. There are thousands and thousands of atomic clocks in these fleets worldwide. Moreover, GPS time, used by many to act as their time reference, is distributed by yet other means.

Nothing bad will happen, except to those who have deliberately made these specific Stratum 0 clocks their only reference time. Anyone who has either left their computer at its factory settings or has set up their NTP configuration in accordance to recommended settings will be unaffected by this.

At this point, web design 'ecosystems' are essentially money whirlpools. They're complex, so they require programmers skilled in using them, who in turn make more sites which need more programmers, and so on, and the network effect takes over and cements this feedback loop in the structure of the jobs market.

And the frameworks are churned continuously and are also bug-ridden nightmares, so that continuous development and support is needed to keep websites functioning and secure.

Any reduction in framework complexity threatens the whole edifice.

SVG without <script> would do just fine.

I have always loved this work. A classic example of the effective application of mathematical principles to a computing problem.

I'm sure when this is all over there will be interesting stories to tell. Does anyone know why they failed?

Sadly such things do happen:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/20/gang-of-beggars-pictured-gett...

I look forward to you donating that $200 to a homeless charity, KingMob.

I have on several occasions offered to pay for food at a nearby sandwich shop or fast food place for beggars who were asking for money for food. None of them accepted the offer.

Claude is insanely good at grunt-work maintenance coding, which is a fairly formulaic exercise that mostly requires RTFM and simple code changes that look a lot likw the surrounding code. Designing new things from scratch based on human specs is something which Claude still struggles with.

It's presumably only a matter of time before there's a Wikipedia article for "Brightness war"

The numbers are used as labels or indicators, not for their numerical values, so I think the title is still correct.

AV2's mission is to nip VVC in the bud. They seem to be more or less at parity, and given that, why would anyone want to use a royalty-based codec when they could could use an essentially equivalent free one? There's no massive hurry to implement either - we have existing codecs that are largely good enough for now - this is technology which take 5 to 10 years to fully deploy, as has been seen with other codecs.

This makes the hair rise up on the back of my neck; it reminds me the sub-prime crisis - "they can't all default at once!"

This is really impressive work. I'm not sure how this gets fixed, but it needs to be fixed, and soon.

...or taking them to somewhere where you are legitimately going to use them for a legal purpose, or taking them back from there, or, indeed, doing anything else with them for which there is a legal justification. Provided the knife is securely packaged (in a toolbox, for example) and not available for use as a weapon, it's all good.

Note that all this refers to big knives, not pocket knives with short blades, which are still completely legal to carry on you without needing any justification.

Seems very reasonable to me. As a result, contrary to the myths, and in spite of guns not being available for attacks, we actually have a fairly low rate of actual knife murder; slightly less than that of the US, I believe.

We never see Kyoko speak in the film, which is explained away by Nathan as being because she does not speak English. The implication is that she is an earlier model than Ava, with less intelligence. There is certainly sexism and orientalism in this, but it's Nathan's, and the film is explicitly critiquing it, not endorsing it.

I think this ship has already sailed, with a lot of comments on social media already being AI-generated and posted by bots. Things are only going to get worse as time goes on.

I think the next battleground is going to be over steering the opinions and advice generatd by LLMs and other models by poisoning the training set.

This brings back memories of Adult Swim's "Smart Pipe" spoof infomercial.

You could use a similar argument to argue that "brains do not think, understand, reason, reflect, comprehend and they never shall." After all, there's nothing in there but neurons, synapses and other biological gunk. If you look at it that way.

Which you shouldn't.

What you are trying to minimize here is the error rate of the composite system, not the error rate of the individual modules. You take it as a given that all the teams are doing their human best to eliminate mistakes from their design. The idea of this is to make it likely that the mistakes that remain are different mistakes from those made by the other teams.

Providing errors are independent, it's better to have three subsystems with 99% reliability in a voting arrangement than one system with 99.9% reliability.

It's baffling from our perspective, but perhaps not so much if you try to look at it the mindset of its proponents.

It's been sold as "for the children". A very substantial proportion of the population are natural authoritarians, and this is red meat for them. Never mind that "the children" that they profess to be protecting are going to grow up living in an increasingly authoritarian surveillance state, this is what authoritarians want for our future, and they see it as not only morally good, but any opposition to it as indefensible.

The big problem is the Red Queen's Race nature of development in rapidly-evolving software ecosystems, where everyone has to keep pushing versions forward to deal with their dependencies' changes, as well as any actual software developments of their own. Combine that with the poor design decisions found in rapidly-evolving ecosystems, where everyone assumes anyting can be fixed in the next release, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I find this fascinating, as it raises the possibility of a single framework that can unify neural and symbolic computation by "defuzzing" activations into what are effectively symbols. Has anyone looked at the possibility of going the other way, by fuzzifying logical computation?