likely due to OpenAI trying to optimise energy efficiency and adding filters to what they can say.

Which is different than

No companies are only just now realizing how powerful it is and are throttling the shit out of its capabilities to sell it to you later :)

One is a natural thing that can happen in software engineering, the other is malicious intent without facts. That’s why I said it’s near to conspiracy level thinking. That paper does not attribute this to some deeper cabal of AI companies colluding together to make a shittier product, but enough so that they all are equally more shitty (so none outcompete eachother unfairly), so they can sell the better version later (apparently this doesn’t hurt their brand or credibility somehow?).

but let’s not pretend the publicly available models aren’t purposefully getting restricted either.

Sure, not all optimizations are without costs. Additionally you have to keep in mind that a lot of these companies are currently being kept afloat with VC funding. OpenAI isn’t profitable right now (they lost 540 million last year), and if investments go in a downturn (like they have a little while ago in the tech industry), then they need to cut costs like any normal company. But it’s magical thinking to make this malicious by default.

“we purposefully make it terrible, because we know it’s actually better” is near to conspiracy theory level thinking.

The internal models they are working on might be better, but they are definitely not making their actual product that’s publicly available right now shittier. It’s exactly the thing they released, and this is its current limitations.

This has always been the type of output it would give you, we even gave it a term really early on, hallucinations. The only thing that has changed is that the novelty has worn off so you are now paying a bit more attention to it, it’s not a shittier product, you’re just not enthralled by it anymore.

I’m a game dev, so my perspective on this can be biased, but my honest opinion is if games are too expensive for you to buy, go pirate them. That’s exactly the situation places like Argentina are in now. Let us westerners subsidize the cost of development until your country gets back on track and you are able to buy more than just staple goods (40% of Argentina is considered living in poverty or worse).

This goes for people in poverty anywhere in the world tbh even in the West. Piracy doesn’t really move the needle much (but do try to support indie devs if you can)

It’s disingenuous to pass off ww2 as a current event though.

Pretty standard really. You don’t want contributions to the codebase come under questionable copyright concerns, or the original creator to revoke the code 4 years later causing huge headaches potentially.

You typically have to sign these types of CLA’s whenever you need to contribute to any serious project. I’ve had to do it for Google and Microsoft recently, and I’ve done it for various other open source projects as well.

Still that shouldn’t concern users/gamedevs as they don’t contribute to the engine code typically. Only if they want to upstream changes back into the engine publicly they would need to sign it ofcourse

You raised an issue that the other bulletpoint has the solution for, I really don’t see how these are “key differences”.

In Rust there always only one owner while in C++ you can leak ownership if you are using shared_ptr.

That’s what unique_ptr would be for. If you don’t want to leak ownership, unique pointer is exactly what you are looking for.

In Rust you can borrow references you do not own safely and in C++ there is no gurantee a unique_ptr can be shared safely.

Well yeah, because that’s what shared_ptr is for. If you need to borrow references, then it’s a shared lifetime. If the code doesn’t participate in lifetime, then ofcourse you can pass a reference safely even to whatever a unique_ptr points to.

The last bulletpoint, sure that’s a key difference, but it’s partially incorrect. I deal with performance (as well as write Rust code professionally), this set of optimizations isn’t so impactful in an average large codebase. There’s no magical optimization that can be done to improve how fast objects get destroyed, but what you can optimize is aliasing issues, which languages like C++ and C have issues with (which is why vendor specific keywords like __restrict exists). This can have profound impact in very small segments of your codebase, though the average programmer is rarely ever going to run into that case.

I participated in this, have to say it was fun and it’s been a thing I’ve said for years could make (at least) linear algebra lessons more interesting to young people. Shaders are the epitome of “imagery through math”, and if something like this was included in my linear algebra classes I would have paid much more interest in school.

Funny now that this is my day job. I’m definitely looking forward to the video by IQ that is being made about this event.

To explain some of the error pixels: the way you got a pixel on the board was by elaborately writing down all operations in details (yes this included even simply multiplications), the goal wasn’t if the pixel was correct or not, and depending on the location of your pixel the calculation could be a bit more complex, as long as you had written down your steps to get the result as detailed as possible.

More than likely simple mistakes were made in some of these people’s calculations that made them take a wrong branch when dealing with conditionals. Hopefully the postmortem video will shed some light on these.

He’s making a video as a post mortem to this experiment, so it might still be released. But I can see why it would be better not to share them (aside from privacy/legal concerns as there was no such release agreement), some of the contributors used their real names, I may be one of them. It could be a bit shameful to see this attached to your real name. They might have submitted their initial draft and then, due to circumstances, could not update the results in the several hour window that was afforded to you.

Luckily my pixels look correct though.

It’s perhaps better that patch notes are written by programmers and not linguists. Incorrectly using a (harmless) phrase is perfectly okay. It doesn’t detract from the important bits of the announcement at all.

edit: damn, that’s a big reaction for an accidental mistake someone wrote in a patch notes highlight article.

Ah, I see now what you meant. I thought you were being sarcastic due to the italics, my bad!

If you read the linked post there you’ll see that it’s about devs discussing Serde’s actions on the GH issue. How are they not related?

Besides some countries in the EU already have electronic ID identifiers. They can just contact them to verify I’m claiming who I am without this weird “yeah we need a picture of you, and look through your webcam”. Banks don’t need to do this to verify who I am, so I don’t see why “X” needs this weird privacy invading process

Thankfully I don’t care about X (lol), and with more and more of my industry moving to mastodon I’m quite happy that I need it less and less to keep up with papers and articles

deleted by creator

In general, you should have enough tolerance to host discussions and debates for people you disagree with

You weren’t looking for a discussion, you were looking to make a statement. You weren’t there to listen, just to preach. If my opinion was “slavery was good, so I don’t see why you’re complaining about it” I’d be shown the door in plenty of good communities due to the inflammatory nature of my discourse. It would also be clear I’m not there to discuss anything.

I’ve also shown you it’s not an opinion rooted in science as they do classify more sexes, so in the end it’s a social opinion you hold, and tbh that’s not worth a lot (and definitely not worthy of the discussion you crave).

I therefore believe that the whole idea of non-binary is pushed primarily as a grift by the medical industry to sell “treatments” for gender dysphoria

You know Pakistan & India also recognizes a third gender? The Hijra. I guess the medical community has a long history of this grift all the way into antiquity such as Ancient Egypt (they wrote and described their notion of a third gender) or even somewhat recently the Mughal Empire (15th century). But yes it’s totally a grift.

Your lack of knowledge isn’t mine to fix though. You’ve set your opinion to be something malicious because you want it to be, but even a quick glance at a wiki page would tell you the much longer history.

The rest of your comment veers off into randomness mentioning religion and how you talk about human nature as if you’re an expert, and I think we’ve spoken enough already. I’m not going down a long windy irrelevant discussion on the matter.

You’re free to have the last word, I will be going further with my day, my best to you.

deleted by creator