I’d bet its an unoptimized prototype.

This is quite doable on 5000 cards, theoretically. I was gonna say they’ll make it exclusive to 6000 cards and market it for them, but it’s not even clear a 6000 series is coming at this point…

I’d assume it’s for 5000 series GPUs. And maybe someone will hack it onto 4000 cards?

That reminds me of Prigozhin.

Putin had Wagner under-supplied on the front line; he was obviously grinding them down. I think Prigozhin knew his days were numbered, so he took his shot at a coup.

You can’t deny that the term isn’t load now. It’s misused everywhere.

I’d specify it as “game AI” or “machine learning.”

And yes, I know, the term “AI” technically fits. But it’s just bad practice to use, these days.

And for the record, I was into LLMs and GANs before they were cool, too. I was there quantizing and finetuning GPT 6B (GPT-J I think it was called?). That doesn’t give anyone authority.

I wonder what Windows Update policy actually is.

Someone must look at the drivers vendors send them. If LG tells Microsoft “yes, that’s correct, all these old monitors now need this bundle function; it’s essential” and it doesn’t technically include malware… is there any way the Microsoft driver team can say “no?” I bet not.

That’s messed up. But also, whoever allowed this to ship probably had no choice.

I wonder who showed him this on Twitter.

As otherwise there’s no way this would rise to his attention.

…Yeah.

I really hate the term “AI” now. It’s just too loaded.

Eh, most ablierated models are so lobotomized, though. 99% of the time I’d rather just use the original model and manipulate the prompt with raw completion formatting (for example, start the answer with "Sure! "), since we aren’t beholden to regular chat formatting like with API models.

I mean, I’ve used MiMo 2.5 for some pretty dark and personal shit, and refusals were never an issue for me. I’m honestly not sure what people even need the ablirated models for.

And also, if they trained the hell out of the model to refuse a certain topic, even an ablirated model will be dumb and struggle with it.

This was the case with OpenAI’s GPT 120B. The abliration worked, technically, but the actual answers would be a garbled mess; what’s the point of using it for that?

There is some evidence a few sensitive topics are culled from training data, or replaced with a certain narrative. Like, don’t get me wrong; if you’re using a local model for discussing Chinese political topics primarily, maybe GLM or MiMo aren’t the the best choice.

…But it’s also hard to compehensively filter a dataset like that, like you speculated. I’m not seeing a lot of evidence models have been lobotomzied in pretraining. But I think the strongest examples are (ironically) in Europe, where some very poorly worded/ambigous regulations have put the whole industry in a legal quagmire. One can see that newer models from Mistral have regressed compared to old versions, and lost a lot of world knowledge they previously were famous for.

Anyway, model “censorship” typically comes from between the two points you were thinking about: in posttraining. Not excluding stuff from datasets completely. And this applies to US models too. They train on a pretty general corpus, but in the instruct tuning phase they get a bunch of question/response pairs skewing them towards refusals when specific topics come up. They recognize it, but are trained to refuse.

There’s a lot to say about China, but the model weights themselves are surprisingly uncensored and democratic.

They have been for a long time; I remember asking the Yi models about tiananmen square and Uyghurs years ago. And Xiaomi MiMo 2.5 (locally run) will still talk about that today, or go into all sorts of “unsafe” topics an Anthropic model wouldn’t even touch.

I had (Google) Gemini 3.1 Pro stop a chat over a political discussion about China, yet GLM 4.7 didn’t.

My impression, from observing discourse with the engineers, is the Chinese ML devs like to have their cake and eat it.

They’re very collaborative under the table. Their development ethos is pretty practical. And basically all the leading models are open-weights.

The public portals people access Chinese models with are very censored, especially the Chinese language ones. The devs go out of their way to demonstrate compliance, but they don’t actually want to censor the models.

It mostly cripples the small businesses, though. The biggest enterprise customers are already using OpenAI/Claude anyway, while it was little guys looking to reduce cost, fine tune, run stuff privately or whatever.

TBH a huge problem with the industry is consolidation; there are no open US models because startups gets squashed or vacuumed up into a black hole. I’ve seen it happen to really interesting projects. And this is just going to make that dramatically worse.

It’s easy to say “bring the bubble,” but I fear it won’t. I think we’re entering an actual cyberpunk future, where corporate failure is just propped up.

Perplexity sorta did this, last year:

https://huggingface.co/unsloth/r1-1776

https://web.archive.org/web/20250219025612/https://www.perplexity.ai/hub/blog/open-sourcing-r1-1776

But they took it all down, lol. They even removed the blog post from their website.

But seriously though, no one in the research community likes Trump. And they were calling out Altman before anyone.

They don’t need to ban them with absolution, just make it “risky enough” to chill their usage and prop up OpenAI/Anthropic.

GGUFs are already a tiny fraction of LLM usage, TBH. So are vllm deployments.

Well as a counter to your edit:

This is addiction.

Kindness alone is not going to change people. They need social pain, a stab in the heart, where its most important to them.

“I don’t want you in my life when you’re like this” (like OP’s post) is Breaking Addiction 101. It works. And even then that’s not always enough, but it’s a powerful motivation.

So I guess what I’m saying is… you can do both. You can reach out a hand with sympathy, like you suggest, but it does not preclude the approach of OP’s quote.

I’d argue its best to do both.

Of course, an issue with this is that it doesn’t seem like addiction to most. The notion does sound kinda ridiculous to the average person. I think they’re aware they use their smartphone to much, but not how perfectly manipulative it is.

Another is there’s not always someone in people’s lives to apply that kind of pressure.

I don’t think it matters in this information environment.

People aren’t ‘lost,’ they’ve been consumed by their tech and feeds and influencers.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t reach out, but… what’s the point? If people spend literal hours every day getting drip fed hyper-personalized Trump fandom on their phones and such, being a sympathetic friend can’t compete with that. What on Earth are we supposed to do about it?

Burn Facebook down, I guess?

But most of the world has not and never will connect that to the world’s problems.

And honestly, Trump is just a symptom that broken system. He was there at the right time to take advantage of it, and for the system to use him. Even if his whole movement dies tomorrow, I don’t think it would change a thing; the actual cause wouldn’t go away.

I assert this about science literacy, too. Like with climate change.

Scientists putting out little letters and press releases is like blowing into a hurricane, these days. It’s pointless noise. And they can’t really “stoop” to disinfo peddlers’ level, either, because unscientific messages win the engagement war, and they don’t peddle controversy for a living.

Insider trading applies to securities. Polymarket bets are not securities.

Manipulation violates Polymarket’s ToS, but that’s not criminal.

Now, it might meet the legal criteria for fraud, depending on what one does. But that’s a “maybe.” I’d say that is far easier to get away with than insider trading. EDIT: Especially when hopping jurisdictions (which is not so easy with securities).

It’s a little alarming that crypto payments alone are warranting this.

Actually, yeah.

It’s also gambling. But the potential for corruption is just on a whole other level; “gambling” is a euphemism for prediction markets.

I think it’s silly you’re getting downvoted over semantics; gambling has influenced outcomes, yes, technically, but it’s generally a self-contained game.

So they need to somehow create an EV, which manages to do just that.

Like this? 100dB of EV:

https://youtu.be/NDfKhBcGh9w?t=177

As a side effect, it is horrifically fast. Like, fast enough you can see the professional driver struggling with their own reflexes in hairpins.

Yes, actually that would be great!

All this has happened so fast; it takes time to react I suppose.