The AI bubble is currently grinding my gears on this. “XXX is an open source model”. No, it’s not. Do I have access to all of the information necessary to recreate it? No, I don’t as nobody releases training data.
Training data is the source of these models. Without it, they are just free use.
The trouble is that “core” is just that. The heart of the processor. There’s a lot of shared state in the caches and the TLBs which is all common to multiple cores.
At this point I think speculation attacks are almost being accepted as the price of having high performance processors. It’s almost impossible to rewind all non-architectural state when you hit a mis-speculated branch.
Probably because although there are fabs going up around the world (USA and Europe) TSMC Taiwan seem to hold the latest technology nodes, and aren’t they interested in growing capacity. They seem to like having the high end expensive limited process. All the other fabs are coming up with processes 2 or 3 generations back. (5 or 7, not 2 or 3).
All means that although there’s a market for the optics, it’s not the bleeding edge stuff.
“Dozens”. Really?!?!
With batteries that would have a multi-day cycle like these ones, you’re going to be trying to flatten out the demand curve (and supply, but the two are related).
The US generates 4.2 PWh a year, and so averages a consumption rate of about 480GW. So, in an ideal system we’d only need this level of generation capacity and if it was higher sometimes and lower others the batteries would smooth it all out.
I’m going to take your 560GW figure as representative of normal demand above the 480GW average. I’ll say half of every day is 80GW above average (when we’d be draining batteries) and half is 80GW below (when we’d be charging). The real curves are much more nuanced, but we’re establishing context. 80GW for 12 hours is 960GWh, so let’s call it 1TWh of battery capacity needed for the whole USA to smooth out a day.
That’s 117 of these installation, which frankly I find amazing that it’s so low.
I don’t seen how else you do it.
“Removing the stigma” is desensitizing by definition. So you want to desensitize through… what? Education?
Yeah I mean it’s just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.
Photoshop has the same technology baked into it now. Sure, it has “safeguards” so it may not generate nudes, but it would have no trouble depicting someone “having dinner with Bill Cosby” or whatever you feel is reputation destroying.
Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn
I don’t think that has been tested in court. It would be a reasonable legal argument to say that the image isn’t a photo of anyone. It doesn’t depict reality, so it can’t depict anyone.
I think at best you can argue it’s a form of photo manipulation, and the intent is to create a false impression about someone. A form of image based libel, but I don’t think that’s currently a legal concept. It’s also a concept where you would have to protect works of fiction otherwise you’ve just made the visual effects industry illegal if you’re not careful.
In fact, that raises an interesting simily. We do not allow animals to be abused, but we allow images of animal abuse in films as long as they are faked. We allow images of human physical abuse as long as they are faked. Children are often in horror films, and creating the images we see is very strictly managed so that the child actor is not exposed to anything that could distress them. The resulting “works of art” are not under such limitations as far as I’m aware.
What’s the line here? Parental consent? I think that could lead to some very concerning outcomes. We all know abusive parents exist.
I say all of this, not because I want to defend anyone, but because I think we’re about to set some really bad legal precidents if we’re not careful. Ones that will potentially do a lot of harm. Personally, I don’t think the concept of any image, or any other piece of data, being illegal holds water. Police people’s actions, not data.
Why is the cheque redacted?
Who and what is being protected?
Maybe not peaked in terms of performance, but in terms of rate of development … Absolutely.
Slashdot.org and digg.com
I’m old school.
Our new moral guides.
Techno-priests
We have a fairly big step up in pay from junior to senior. I can take on 2 or 3 juniors to a high senior or especially principle engineer.
We’re often also taking juniors on that we already have a relationship with through placements during their university course. That minimises the risk.
juniors are a way bigger risk than seniors and usually leave a company right around the time that they’re getting good.
Personally, as a manager, I find the opposite.
It’s always the juniors that exceed expectations. You never hire somebody senior and find they can do twice as much as you thought. Juniors are often eager to learn if you are willing to teach them. They want to be good at their job, because they know they are laying the foundation of their career. Seniors often have all the bad habits baked in.
Then, if you get a good reputation for developing people (because they leave your team and impress their next set of colleagues) it becomes easier and easier to hire.
The problem is the first part of your question.
You only need Bayesian filters for that IMHO.
Oh yes, mgh not mh. You’re right
Ah, so you’re a waffle guy!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_SAuQDec