That reminds me of a joke.

A museum guide is talking to a group about the dinosaur fossils on exhibit.
“This one,” he says, “Is 6 million and 2 years old.”
“Wow,” says a patron, “How do you know the age so accurately?”
“Well,” says the guide, “It was 6 million years old when I started here 2 years ago.”

From Wikipedia: this is only a 1-sigma result compared to theory using lattice calculations. It would have been 5.1-sigma if the calculation method had not been improved.
Many calculations in the standard model are mathematically intractable with current methods, so improving approximate solutions is not trivial and not surprising that we’ve found improvements.

Apparently Inflection AI have bought 22,000 H100 GPUs. The H100 has approximately 4x the compute for transformers as the A100. GPT4 is rumored to be 10x larger than GPT3. GPT3 takes approximately 34 days to train on 1024 A100 GPUs.

So with 22,000*4/1024=85.9375x more compute, they could easily do 10x GPT4 size in 1-2 months. Getting to 100x the size would be feasible but likely they’re banking on the claimed speedup of 3x from FlashAttention-2, which would result in about 6 months of training.

It’s crazy that these scales and timelines seem plausible.

This is an essay about the Barbie brand and its relationship to feminism and capitalism through history and the modern day. The Barbie movie is discussed but it’s not the primary focus.

DALL-E was the first development which shocked me. AlphaGo was very impressive on a technical level, and much earlier than anticipated, but it didn’t feel different.
GANs existed, but they never seemed to have the creativity, nor understanding of prompts, which was demonstrated by DALL-E. Of all things, the image of an avocado-themed chair is still baked into my mind. I remember being gobsmacked by the imagery, and when I’d recovered from that, just how “simple” the step from what we had before to DALL-E was.
The other thing which surprised me was the step from image diffusion models to 3D and video. We certainly haven’t gotten anywhere near the quality in those domains yet, but they felt so far from the image domain that we’d need some major revolution in the way we approached the problem. The thing which surprised me the most was just how fast the transition from images to video happened.

If this is a real question, this talk explains the fundamental concepts of atomic operations in a couple of minutes.

The talk itself is over an hour long, as the use of atomic operations has a large number of pitfalls. The joke in the meme leans on a specific type of memory ordering guarantee, known as “relaxed” in C++ parlance, which can be a lot faster, but which is much more likely to violate the default assumptions a programmer may make about order of operations and visibility across threads.

I asked the same question of GPT3.5 and got the response “The former chancellor of Germany has the book.” And also: “The nurse has the book. In the scenario you described, the nurse is the one who grabs the book and gives it to the former chancellor of Germany.” and a bunch of other variations.

Anyone doing these experiments who does not understand the concept of a “temperature” parameter for the model, and who is not controlling for that, is giving bad information.

Either you can say: At 0 temperature, the model outputs XYZ. Or, you can say that at a certain temperature value, the model’s outputs follow some distribution (much harder to do).

Yes, there’s a statistical bias in the training data that “nurses” are female. And at high temperatures, this prior is over-represented. I guess that’s useful to know for people just blindly using the free chat tool from openAI. But it doesn’t necessarily represent a problem with the model itself. And to say it “fails entirely” is just completely wrong.

The greatest fix to all your pointer issues are to use references.

None of the related magazines in this community are listing this community in their related magazine section.

I’d advise expanding (and trimming) the related magazine section, plus messaging mods to ask if they’d like to add your magazine to their related section.

Thanks for the advice, but I actually love code reviews.

I wonder what specifically they’re interested in vs long deployments in Antarctica (people do 12 months rotations in some stations there).

I found this article discussing the psychology of placements in Australian antarctic stations: https://psychology.org.au/for-members/publications/inpsych/2021/february-march-issue-1/life-in-the-australian-antarctic-program.

The differences as I see them are:

1. Smaller crew
2. No unsuited outdoor time
3. Smaller space
4. Communication latency / outages
5. Personal belongings weight/volume limits
6. Dietary restrictions

Looks like the same guys were doing publicity around 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-07-30/australia-joins-lab-grown-meat-industry/11360506
At the time, they claimed the cost to make a single hamburger was $30-$40, and now 4 years later, they claim to have gotten it down to $5-$6 per patty.
The article claims the first demonstration of a lab-grown hamburger was in 2013.

So 6 years from proof of concept to (probably) first capital raise, then 4 years to start regulatory approval, 1 year for approval to take place (target is March next year).

!literature@kbin.social should go in your list, it has more of a poetry slant.
!books@kbin.social has almost 3000 members

I’m sure you can find plenty more on kbin.social as well.

Haha, thanks for the correction. If you have to use your degree in ethics, perhaps you could add your perspective to the thread?

In the last 12 months, 3M’s profits were $14.4B (source), so this fine represents 8.5 months of profits.

How large should the fine have been?

How many people will read the title without the comments and leave with the wrong idea?

Not that I think you should take the post down, but the title is quite definitive, and confirms existing biases, so people are unlikely to research further.

If you can get past the weird framing device, the Plinkett reviews of the Star Wars prequels are an excellent deep dive into the issues with those films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&list=PL5919C8DE6F720A2D

Jenny Nicholson’s videos are great, but her documentary on “The Last Bronycon” is special, as the realization dawns on you while watching that she has more connection to Brony culture than you might have guessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fVOF2PiHnc

I’ve seen this sentiment before, but what evidence is there that the current system isn’t working?

For example, this chart shows remarkable improvement for Indigenous Australian infant mortality (source).

What metrics are you looking at which are not trending in a favourable way for indigenous Australians?

And, as indigenous Australians were only given the right to vote in 1962, how quickly do you expect parity with non-indigenous Australians to happen?

It would literally be a non-issue if it were simply an advisory body as has been done in the past. The issue is that the supporters want to alter the constitution.

The systematic oppression of indigenous Australians started around 1869 with the introduction of the “Aborigines Protection Act”, and indigenous Australians were only ceded the right to vote in 1962. So, it’s no surprise that we have issues currently, as people alive today were directly or indirectly affected by those policies (and others).

In a thousand years time (hopefully a hundred years, if we’re lucky), these issues will no longer be present. But the constitution will still exist, and hopefully exist far into the future. So, why add wording to a long-lived document for problems which are so short-term? Especially when altering the constitution is not necessary to effect change?

According to consequentialism:

1. Imagining sexual fantasies in one’s own mind is fine.
2. Any action which affects no-one but the actor, such as manifesting those fantasies, is also fine.
3. Distributing non-consensual pornography publicly is not fine.
4. Distributing tools for the purpose of non-consensual pornography is a grey area (enables (2), which is permissible, and (3), which is not).

From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as “few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem”. I guess I am one of the few.

Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn’t make it immoral).

In the author’s example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn’t amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn’t amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.

The author’s conclusion is also odd:

Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women) […] Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered […]

1. Could you not also equally claim that women are being worshipped instead of degraded? Only by knowing the mind of both the consumer and the model can you determine which is happening. And of course each could have different perspectives.
2. If there were equal amounts of deep fakes of men as women, the conclusion implies that deep fakes would be fine (as that is the only distinction drawn), which is probably not the author’s intention.
3. I take issue with the use of systemic. The purpose of deep fakes is for sexual gratification of the user, not degradation. Only if you consider being the object of focus for sexual gratification to be degradation could the claim that there is anything systemic. If it was about degradation, wouldn’t consumers be trying to notify targeted people of their deep fake videos and make them as public as possible?
4. Singling out “women” as a group is somewhat disingenuous. Women are over-represented in all pornography because the majority of consumers are men and the majority of men are only attracted to women. This is quite clear as ugly women aren’t likely to be targeted. It’s not about “being a woman”, it’s about “being attractive to pornography consumers”. I think to claim “degradation of women” with the caveat that “half of women won’t be affected, and also a bunch of attractive males will be” makes the claim vacuous.