"I don't know" is the last thing I expected someone to say, everyone is so fuckin certain nowadays. Thank you for taking the effort to post that, I mean it. I've always felt insecure about most of my convictions because the environment I was raised in could not support mistakes, which was perfect for computer engineering: We can always test again when we get something wrong. People are clearly not like that (or so I learned). Thanks. Really.
I know my english could use some improvement and I will leave this first comment to clarify I am a Brazilian developer: My main language is Portuguese, but I've been a productive software engineer for over 3 consecutive years in companies with daily meetings and did a good job. All I am asking is what should we (software engineers) focus our effort on?
Just a note: the link for Staff Software Engineer for Distributed Systems is returning 404. Also, does the company considers Senior React Developers (Web) for the React Native role?
What a great experience applying, thanks for that! Its organized, easy to navigate, descriptions are clear and straight to the point, it even has got a nice design! Talk about raising the bar!
> This might be a case of a rabbit you do not want to chase.
I'm sure the researchers will all collectively realize this, if it were to be the case, and disregard their 12 year academic journey with their great salaries in favor of research into more important topics like world hunger, renewable energy, etc.
I'm so sure that the percentage of sureness is an imaginary, quantum-entangled value between -7 and 13 billion percent.
I research QC. Feel free to explain how my skills could be used to meaningfully contribute to the problem of world hunger or renewable energy while also keeping me employed --- going back to college to train in a different field isn't feasible. If it's not so easy, then perhaps it's logical that QC researchers and AI researchers and software devs aren't all jumping ship to work on "more important topics"...
You may just be spouting off, but I genuinely am asking. If someone else dissing QC research wants to make a pitch for a concrete plan on how to make a difference in the world with a physics PhD and years of experience in scientific computing, drop me a message.
> You're just using power that could go towards training a better LLM.
What if I haven't found that special someone yet, the one that will help me raise the next better LLM? I think I already got like 40% of the dataset I find valuable, all I need is to find someone with the other 40% and we could go in a journey together to find the remaining 20%. Sounds like the adventure of a life time.
Yes, but you could negotiate a token with each user on startup and if someone starts abusing your service you can block that access (perhaps automatically) or know who it is by authenticating the user.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED! @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY!
Someone could be eavesdropping on you right now (man-in-the-middle attack)!
It is also possible that a host key has just been changed.
The fingerprint for the RSA key sent by the remote host is
SHA256:uNiVztksCsDhcc0u9e8BujQXVUpKZIDTMczCvj3tD2s.
Please contact your system administrator.
Note that the SHA256 present there matches perfectly the one github send. If you don't remember the very first time you connected to github you also had to accept the key. The warning above shows up because the server is saved as a different RSA, for the SSH client it seems that someone setup a server for github but has a different key, which could mean someone is trying to trick you into connecting into the wrong server. This could also mean that github changed their RSA key which is why they published this article.
The fingerprint is a hash of the key, so in theory -- say with a quantum computer -- I could create a key that's different and provides a hash-collision. Is that right?
It would just take many ages of the universe, at present, to calculate a collision, right?
There's a narrow window for that attack. The fingerprint is only used on the first connection, for manual verification. Any later connections would check the ~/.ssh/known_hosts which has the full public key.
If you somehow can MITM an SSH connection on the first connection, you can probably use any key. Most people don't check the fingerprint.
But you are correct, computing an SSH key with a collisionwis expected to take an infeasible amount of time/energy with current understanding of crypto and available computers.
Why doesn't torch use automated artifact generation? As in a virtual machine or a github actions that download dependencies and compile it when a new python version is released?
reply