I don't know whether people are just ignorant but it is heavily likely say the S2S without any intelligence can run on a pro-sumer device. Just because it is "OpenAI" and "Google" and not public knowledge or will be open source/public weights doesn't mean you can't reasonably infer.

> From what I know about the academic community (mostly from Twitter and LinkedIn, which I assume are representative), there seems to be near-unanimous agreement that the purpose of math and science research is to gather a large quantity of potentially true factoids in a repository that nobody will actually ever read, in a ritual called “advancing humanity’s[3] knowledge”. That these results are well-written, understandable, pleasant to read or look at, or even completely correct is a secondary concern — in fact, in the pursuit of advancing humanity’s knowledge as quickly as possible, many academics will recoil in anger at the suggestion that it is worth spending any time making results understandable to humans.

Am I the only who thinks this is rhetorical? Modern mathematics is so far removed from the base average knowledge (lets just assume high school instead of going to axioms) that the only people who understand most (if not all new) mathematical achievement are the mathematicians themselves, heck not even all mathematicians, it needs to be spread and developed from "hot spots"?

Your math results are not "well-written, understandable, pleasant to read or look at" unless you literally operate with two or three levels within the proof paper compared to the average person who probably starts at an order of magnitude levels higher.

To the average person, asking a mathematician to explain something is the same as asking the AI/LLM. Both are asking an oracle to dumb it down to their level of abstraction.

To the person who are not career mathematicians, both LLMs and mathematicians do the same thing, pump out garbled output that they themselves understand, and to mathematicians, the difference is one probably explains using axioms rather than theorems.

As a mere software engineer, I found that many human written papers in my field (DSP, ML) aren’t exactly well-written, easily understandable or pleasant to read either, and it’s been the case for at least 15 years. In the past, I would frequently spend an hour or two trying to read a SOTA paper full of convoluted prose and dense pages of equations, only to realise that the algorithm is incredibly simple if visualised properly or even just written down as pseudocode.

Now with LLMs the process is much shorter. They can walk me through the algorithm step by step, translate it to pseudocode, explain equations, and most importantly, I can ask them questions and get clarifications, without worrying about seeming ignorant or exhausting their patience. With a paper, you’re stuck with whatever was written (and often, researchers aren’t good teachers, or intentionally over complicate simple concepts).

> many human written papers in my field (DSP, ML) aren’t exactly well-written, easily understandable or pleasant to read

Yep, my eyes glaze over at the convoluted mathematical explanations for pathfinding in worldspace, but when I see the pseudocode in the appendix it make so much more sense.

That's simply because code is easier to read for programmers than math. For mathematicians it is the other way around. Each profession has developed their own DSLs.

GUI of what?

For example, you can't pry KDE out of my cold, dead hands, ever. The capabilities of the desktop and the standard KDE installation blows anything I have used out of water easily.

We (as in Linux users, sysadmins and devs) love our TUIs because they work transparently over SSH. I have more than 100 servers which I reach regularly. I neither want to install a full graphical user interface, nor forward it to my desktop to manage them.

If you want to discuss this, I'm chill & all ears.

Is it just me or the DevDay was pretty much a joke? Considering the backdrop, it was lackluster, so either they independently concurrently were doing the same thing (and was stacking everything for DevDay and got all their thunder stolen) or they did a fast pivot in response to what came out and dumped their original plans.

I'm confused by what this means.

I think it is pretty much agreed that the OP has a perfectly good claim starting a legal event. Whether it amounts to the 1B settlement or not is not something anyone here can decide.

In general, most founding staff with lucrative contracts, are often pushed out just before an IPO. Doesn't matter if you were friends, worked 60 hour weeks building the company for years, or name is on the company patents.

A bit of cash can turn folks into awful people, and some contracts are just a obfuscated legal con of the naive. =3

Unfortunately true.

I'm just differentiating between the legal correctness and personal opinion/viewpoints on the matter.

Regardless of whether you are legally correct or not isn't really the crux of the issue for me, heck maybe Jensen doesn't even care about a billion given everything's he's minting (who knows though).

I was only talking from personal standing, in your stated cases or if I was in this position (I made some assumptions regarding the case), it would be a breaches of good faith and I would find it hard to trust them in a partnership ever again.

Only my POV, maybe the folks at the B level don't care about this as much since they are starting to fling Ts around. I can see how some people wouldn't really care, i.e. treating them as a freelancer and main objective is getting something done, but on a personal basis probably wouldn't trust them (say on personal matters that are company defining).

> if someone did this to me this is pretty much grounds for an irreparable relationship.

If someone tried to claim what was contractually theirs?

If they did not complain when they were sent the letter (of vesting) either they did not care about the stock or was under the same assumption they were that is over 4 years.

Of course, contracts are legally binding, but that's completely different from my perception / evaluation of someone - if the mutual understanding was over 4 years and then 30 years later you find the typo and come back to bite me then yes it is 100% an irreparable relationship.

Yes I would think better of them if they came back to bite if NVIDIA was a penny stock but probably nobody would bite them back if they found out it was worth $100 instead of $1B.

To be clear, the grant is the legally binding document regardless of intent (initial offer + vesting seems to imply 4 years), I would eat the typo if it was 30 years ago and chalk it off as a learned mistake (assuming it wasn't company altering), although I would still think less of them for fleecing.

I don’t know about your jurisdiction but here the intent absolutely matters. If both parties intend something different to what was written then the written contract can be superseded.

There’s also situations like this where mistakes can be ignored.

Otherwise you could have really bad situations where both parties are forced into a stupid contract that doesn’t make sense, or someone is forced to sell their house for £1.000000 rather than £1,000,000.

Yes, but that is regarding the legal outcome. There are two different things going on here.

Legally, the grant contract is the "Casus belli" - it is the reason for which you have a claim to something, whether it was intent or not doesn't matter, you have a valid claim to take them to court, there is no need to really talk about that. However it gets resolved, is really not something I can tell, not a lawyer.

Whether I remain friends or on trustworthy terms is a personal matter, which is unrelated to legal outcomes in this case.

It doesn't force you to do anything, same as a sole proprietor.

What it does do is that since it provides a rigid structure, it compels law abiding citizens to do those actions, not forcing still.

You would have a hard time proving liability if you didn't have separated finances.

Forming an LLC doesn't make separating finances any easier. It doesn't help you do it or help you force yourself to to do it. My objection is specifically to the claim that it helps you do anything. It doesn't.

Also, you should separate finances as a sole proprietor too.

The answer for why it wasn't productized might just be pretty straightforward.

LLMs still are better than Jev at the task, just across the board slower.

Anyone who had a reason to try this already tried it (ads/recommendations) - back in 2023/2024 during the first fine tuning wave and it was accurately determined that it was not worth the effort, the results were more bogus than just using CoT, so frankly parallelism meant nothing if bogus * parallel = bogus.

So thrown into the dumpster and nobody really cared to revisit because it was already tried.

Pretty much sometime between then and now it somehow became the state where the tradeoff makes sense now.

However in the last 2-3 years LLMs became a lot more efficient. Small models without CoT are still bad, but leagues ahead of where they used to be

Maybe it's just a case of the idea just now crossing the threshold into working just good enough to be worth it

This is going to end horribly.

NixOS is not suited for general workstations, to even get a semblance of rationality for general use you would need to develop the underlying infrastructure which you are not going to get from a government unless they are diehard sponsoring it (spoiler alert, in the current climate, pretty much as nil as it can get).

Pretty stupid choice of action - seems to be a more nationalistic play than a rationale one (the creator and the Foundation are based in the Netherlands which is what they are referring to).

   "seems to be a more nationalistic play than a rationale one"

That holds true for at least 50% of the decisions made this year on both sides of the Atlantic. But it doesn't change the fact that NL is in a bad place and needs to do something

you are going to get development of the underlying infrastructure whether your like it or not.

Shouldn't we want our governments to be able to support public infrastructure? Especially in a world of AI?

What's so damn special about only businesses being capable? Nothing. You build a good society and it doesnt matter which position you're in.

I get it, but you're not gonna get good software by pretending there isn't an issue with commercial capture of your "business" software.

You don't know Dutch people, do you? Python was not meant for production, but look what Guido Van Rossum has done.

Does the latency even matter?

You're comparing a local GPU to network hops? Wouldn't be surprised if Jev was actually similar in runtime and their is just a great deal of network latency.

The evaluation is quite interesting though - I'd actually say the raw answer is correct in the absence of detail and prior knowledge (Who wrote the play Romeo and Juliet).

I tried TypeSafe’s Jev playground. It outputs the model latency and network latency separately. The model latency was 100-200ms in my tests.