Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

31337

@ 31337 @sh.itjust.works

Posts
11
Comments
295
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • X appears to be juicing MrBeast’s views to woo the YouTuber to the platform, pushing video upload into users’ feeds as an unlabeled ad

    Jump

  • Meh, I've never watched a video of his, but seems like it's just a modern day game show/home makeover/dystopian feel-good story sort of thing. Neither good or bad. It's good that he helps some people, bad that the people and many, many more need help.

  • Mark Zuckerberg indicates Meta is spending billions of dollars on Nvidia AI chips

    Jump

  • Quality. Yeah, using the extra compute to increase speed of development iterations would be a benefit. They could train a bunch of models in parallel and either pick the best model to use or use them all as an ensemble or something.

    My guess is that the main reason for all the GPUs is they're going to offer hosting and training infrastructure for everyone. That would align with the strategy of releasing models as "open" then trying to entice people into their cloud ecosystem. Or, maybe they really are trying to achieve AGI as they state in the article. I don't really know of any ML architectures that would allow for AGI though (besides the theoretical, incomputable AIXI).

  • Mark Zuckerberg indicates Meta is spending billions of dollars on Nvidia AI chips

    Jump

  • The equivalent of 600k H100s seems pretty extreme though. IDK how many OpenAI has access to, but it's estimated they "only" used 25k to train GPT4. OpenAI has, in the past, claimed the diminishing returns on just scaling their model past GPT4s size probably isn't worth it. So, maybe Meta is planning on experimenting with new ANN architectures, or planning on mass deployment of models?

  • ‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says

    Jump

  • Goes both ways. As someone who has tried bringing new products to market, it's extremely annoying that nearly everything you can think of already has similar patent. I've also reverse engineered a few things (circuits and disassembled code), as a little guy, working for a small business . I don't think people usually scan patents to learn things, and reverse engineering usually isn't too hard.

    If I were a capitalist, I'd argue that if a big business "steals" an idea, and implements it more effectively and efficiently than the small business, then the small business should probably fail.

  • X Purges Prominent Journalists, Leftists With No Explanation

    Jump

  • I've checked it out, but was never a twitter user anyways, so I'm not the right audience. I think the lack of an algorithm really hurts the experience for many users. Seems like you have to put work in to get your feed right. Also, the network effect Twitter has is strong. Mastodon is probably the least toxic social media I've seen though.

  • ‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says

    Jump

  • Meh, patents are monopolies over ideas, do much more harm than good, and help big business much more than they help the little guy. Being able to own an idea seems crazy to me.

    I marginally support copyright laws, just because they provide a legal framework to enforce copyleft licenses. Though, I think copyright is abused too much on places like YouTube. In regards to training generative AI, the goal is not to copy works, and that would make the model's less useful. It's very much fair use.

    Trademarks are generally good, but sometimes abused as well.

  • Locked

    Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It

    Jump

  • Usually compost is made from stuff that would otherwise be waste. The stuff in your compost would rot and off-gas anyways. I think intentionally composting actually results in less emissions than what would happen naturally or in a landfill. I wouldn't buy stuff just to compost it (I'd just buy compost, which, in my area, is usually made from yard waste collected by local municipalities). If you need a lot of compost you can usually intercept quite a bit of material from the normal waste streams for free. I.e. you can usually get arborists to dump tons of woodchips in your yard, talk to coffee shops to see if they'll give you their spent coffee grounds, etc.

  • Fear Mongering About Range Anxiety Has To Stop — CT Governor Calls Out EV Opponents

    Jump

  • ??? The cheapest new vehicle I've seen is $18k. If you're talking about used vehicles, you can get used EVs even cheaper since they tend to lose value faster. I just checked autotrader, and they have a Leaf with only 40k miles for $9k. You're going to have a hard time finding a decent vehicle of any kind under $5k. I really don't understand what kind of point you're trying to argue about. Yes, vehicles are expensive, but many people need one. I spent most of my life only being able to afford vehicles that barely ran, and repairing them myself (often improvising without having the correct tools).

  • Fear Mongering About Range Anxiety Has To Stop — CT Governor Calls Out EV Opponents

    Jump

  • I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. EVs can pay their own difference. Depending on where you live (what your gasoline and electricity costs are), an EV can save $10,000+ in fuel over their lifespans, making some EVs cheaper than comparable ICE vehicles. I.E. you can get a new Chevy Bolt for $27k, then you'd save $10k on fuel over its lifetime. $17k is cheaper than a comparable car. I believe you'd also get a $7.5k tax credit.

  • Fear Mongering About Range Anxiety Has To Stop — CT Governor Calls Out EV Opponents

    Jump

  • Depending on the EV, the total cost of ownership is cheaper than a comparable ICE vehicle (due to fuel savings, and being mechanically simpler to maintain and repair). I'm pretty sure personal vehicles are the largest source of personal CO2 emissions, since it takes an EV 34kwh to travel 100 miles, and ICE vehicles are 4x less efficient. Pretty sure that would produce more CO2 than a typical household's heating and cooling.

  • World will look back at 2023 as year humanity exposed its inability to tackle climate crisis, scientists say

    Jump

  • I've been reading about what some of what the rich and powerful openly state they believe, and it's pretty scary. They are extremely out of touch with reality. I wonder what they believe that they're not open about.

    So far, I've read about:

    Effective altruism

    • seems to be about exploiting people to amass as much wealth as they can, then use that wealth to "help" humanity by building space ships to launch rich people into space or something.

    Effective accelerationism

    • explicitly doesn't care about humanity, only "technocapitalism." Is fine with AI destroying humanity, because that would be the natural evolution of intelligence.

    Peter Theil

    • believes all kinds of crazy shit. Women and democracy are a danger to humanity because they're anti-"libertarian". World should be a collection of city-states or floating cities ruled by corporations.

  • Swiss cocaine so cheap and widely used they’re considering legalising it

    Jump

  • I've heard it's cheaper if you mix with baking soda or something and smoke it.

  • World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam (2015)

    Jump

  • I don't have a console, but I've hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to my crazy gaming PC with a TDP > 600w. When working, browsing, listening to music, watching videos, etc, it only uses around 60w, or the same as a single incandescent light bulb. When playing a modern AAA game, it uses around 250w. Not great considering the power consumption of a Switch or Steam Deck, but orders of magnitude less than typical U.S. household heating and cooling. I'd guess AI and crypto BS uses more energy than all PCs combined. Though I guess we all indirectly use AI (or rather, get used by AI).

  • Asking ChatGPT to Repeat Words ‘Forever’ Is Now a Terms of Service Violation

    Jump

  • Yes, the trained model is too complex to understand. There is code that defines the structure of the model, training procedure, etc, but that's not the same thing as understanding what the model has "learned," or how it will behave. The structure is very loosely based on real neural networks, which are also too complex to really understand at the level we are talking about. These ANNs are just smaller, with only billions of connections. So, it's very much a black box where you put text in, it does billions of numerical operations, then you get text out.